/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221003.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, October 3, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 191

                            Headlines

#1 BEDFORD DELI: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
3M COMPANY: Emerson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Gaul Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Riley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Vialpando Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals

3M COMPANY: Werick Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
88 FEATHERBED APPAREL: Aleheri Sues Over Sales Clerks' Unpaid Wages
A&W CONCENTRATE: Court Stays Dailey Class Suit Until Nov. 30
ACME THERAPIES: Clifton Seeks Unpaid Wages for Therapy Assistants
ADVANTAGE PLUS: Pre-Class Cert Discovery Deadline Extended

AEI PAINTING: Fails to Provide Proper OT Wages, Orellana Claims
ALABAMA: Class Settlement in Singleton v. Cunningham Gets Final Nod
ALBERTA: Class Action Over Delayed Bail Hearings Gets Certified
ALDEN GROUP: Nursing Facilities File Class Suit Over Understaffing
ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Burchfield RICO Suit in E.D. Arkansas

ALL FLORIDA: Healey Seeks Conditional FLSA Collective Status
ALLIANCE FOR SHARED: Bids to Dismiss Bandy Suit Granted in Part
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Status Report Submission Extended to Oct. 21
ALTUS JOBS: Klinakis Hits Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
AMAZON WEB: Dorian Wins Leave to File First Amended Class Complaint

AMAZON.COM: Gorgas Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
AMERICAN FEDERATION: 4th Cir. Affirms Mattos Class Suit Dismissal
AMERICAN HONDA: Raynaldo Class Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
AMERICAN HONDA: Stipulation on Class Cert Briefing Sched Granted
ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Bonilla Suit

ANNAPOLIS, MD: Johnson, et al., Seek Class Certification
ANTHONY LOGISTICS: Arriaga, et al., Seek FLSA Conditional Cert
APPLE INC: Plaintiffs' Lawyers File Class Certification Motion
APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Gaines FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
ARCHULETA COUNTY, CO: Faces Class Suit Over Wrongful Termination

ARMSTRONG STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Systemic False Marketing
AT&T MOBILITY: Class Settlement in Razo Gets Initial Approval
AUDIOPHILE MUSIC: Molinari Sues  Over Deceptive Record Album Ads
AWP INC: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Kasiotis Suit Granted in Part
BACKSTREETS GRILL: Wolff Suit Stayed Pending Class Cert Ruling

BANK OF AMERICA: Allen Alleges Unlawful Voice Print Recording
BANK OF AMERICA: Mohamed Appeals Case Dismissal to 4th Cir.
BARTU LLC: Dinc Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Hair Salon Staff
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Trotter Sues Over Defective and Toxic Collars
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: 3rd Cir. Reverses $3.7M Fee Award to Law Firms

BETSY JIVIDEN: Rose Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
BICKFORD OF TINLEY: Cooper BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BIMBO BAKERIES: Juarez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
BKP INC: Miles Wins Class Certification Bid
BLUE DIAMOND: Cummings Suit Seeks Class Certification

BOEING EMPLOYEES: Order Setting Pretrial Sched Entered in Arant
BOOKS-A-MILLION INC: Lam VPPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
BOOT BARN: Denies to Convert Gift Card Balance to Cash, Harvey Says
BRGR STOP: Spechler Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
BROADCAST MUSIC: Baker Appeals Claim Dismissal to 2nd Cir.

BROOKLYN SUYA CORP: Gaskin Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
BRYANT UNIVERSITY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BTS ON THE RIVER: Bennett Seeks to Certify Class of Entertainers
BUTLER UNIVERSITY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAKE MORTGAGE: Underpays Mortgage Loan Officers, Assi Alleges

CANADA: RCMP Class Action Over Bullying, Harassment Gets Certified
CARBONITE INC: Luna Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
CAROLINA MOTOR: Johnson Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
CDK ENTERPRISES: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CENTURY REALTY: Court Enters Final Order & Judgment in Baloga Suit

CHRISTY SPORTS: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CIG LOGISTICS: Mobley Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
CINTAS CORPORATION: Files Writ of Certiorari in Hawkins ERISA Suit
CIRCLE 9: Gore Suit Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Class
CITIZENS BANK: Court Modifies Class Certification Schedule

CLEVELAND, OH: Pickett Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
COACH FOUNDATION: Illegally Records Conversations, Michaels Says
COCA-COLA CO: Spaner Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 11th Cir.
COLGATE PALMOLIVE: Exposes Consumers to Asbestos, Rice Suit Claims
COLLIER DEVELOPMENT: Redding Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages

COLT BUILDERS: Fierros Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
COLTER ENERGY: Joyce Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
COLUMBUS LIFE INSURANCE: Young Sues Over Breach of Contract
COMSTAR LLC: Moran Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
CONSERVATORY OF PIANO: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Frazze

COOK OUT: Mobley Sues Over Gender Discrimination in Compensation
CRONOS GROUP: Court Ruling in Securities Class Suit Discussed
CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Bid to Compel Discovery in Coe Suit OK'd
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Beck's Amended Bid for Class Cert. Denied
DCT TEXAS: Smidansky Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages

DECKER ELECTRIC: Hicks Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Vance Suit to 4th Cir.
DIRT CHEAP: Waddell Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
DOLE PACKAGED: Ill. Fed. Ct. Adopts Scheduling, Discovery Order
DOLLAR TREE: Howard Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Wages

DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Driver Class
EIGHT ORANGES: Mangahas Seeks Conditional Class Certification
ELITE INSURANCE: Larrabee Seeks Sales Agents' Unpaid Wages
ELITE INSURANCE: Underpays Insurance Sales Agents, Gatch Says
ELITE INSURANCE: Underpays Insurance Sales Agents, Guthrie Says

ENTERPRISE LEASING: Class Settlement in Benson Suit Wins Final Nod
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Coria Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
ESTATES LLC: Souther Appeals Atty. Fees & Costs Ruling to 4th Cir.
EXECUPHARM INC: Court Issues Ruling in Data Breach Class Action
FEIN & SUCH: Parties Seek Final Approval of Class Settlement

FIDELITY BROKERAGE: Balanzar Balks at Voice Print Recording
FIRST TRANSIT: California District Court Stays Bellone Class Suit
FLORIDA: Faces Alianza Suit Over Mistreatment of Immigrants
FLOWERS FOODS: Fails to Properly Pay Distributors, Brock Alleges
FLRISH INC: Calhoun Seeks Class Certification

FLUOR FLATIRON: Corral-Bey Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
FLUTTER HABIT: Brito Sues Over Unwanted Telephonic Sales Calls
FORD MOTOR: Court Tosses Thornburg Class Cert Bid w/o Prejudice
FRONT LINE: Parties File Amended Bid for Conditional Cert
FRONT LINE: Parties File Bid for FLSA Conditional Certification

FULGENT GENETICS: Pugley Sues Over 17.29% Decline of Stock Price
GARDA CL SOUTHEAST: Alicea Sues Over Messengers/Drivers' Unpaid OT
GEICO: Agrees to Settle Sales Tax Class Action for $19.1 Million
GENENTECH INC: Parties File Joint Bid for Class Certification
GENEVE HOLDINGS: Bass Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty

GETHEALTH-E LLC: Johnson-Gruver Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
GOFUND ADVANCE: Haymount, et al., Seek Rule 23 Class Certification
GOLDEN 1 CREDIT: Files Writ of Certiorari in Burgardt Contract Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Settlement in Fulton Suit Has Prelim. Approval
GREENSKY INC: Jerrick Bucks File Bid for Class Certification

GREG LINDBERG: Jordan, et. al., File Bid for Class Certification
HAIER US: Bid to Compel Sales Data in Haft Suit Granted in Part
HALLAL FOOD: Garcia Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Deli Workers
HEALTH CARE: Underpays Medical Management Specialists, Aguilar Says
HELLOFRESH SE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Spam Text Messages

HOME ARTS DESIGN: Oliveira Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HONOLULU, HI: Hayslip Seeks Conditional Class Certification
HOOVESTOL INC: Court Certifies Subclasses in Hardwick Suit
HOSPITALS CORPORATION: Underpays Nurse Practitioners, Sumpter Says
HOT TOPIC: Byars Sues Over Wiretapping of Website Communications

IKEA US: Court Enters Sixth Scheduling Order in Dukich Suit
INFORMA MEDIA: Gottsleben Sues Over Disclosed Private Reading Info
JONATHON PATROWICZ: Averts Former Patients' TCPA Class Action
JOSEPH FINANCIAL: Class Cert Filing Extended in Fraud
JUUL LABS: Madison Metropolitan Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads

KIRK'S NATURAL: Agrees to Settle False Ads Class Suit for $650,000
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: MSP Sues Over Defective CPAP Machines
KRUGER FOODS INC: Ball Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KYOCERA CORP: Agrees to Settle Investors' Class Suit for $49.9-M
LA ROLA RESTAURANT: Jimenez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage

LANCESOFT INC: Preliminary Sched Order Entered in Perofeta Suit
LEVEL 5 CARPENTRY: Arroyo Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation
LINCOLN BENEFIT: Farley Seeks to Certify Class Action
LM GENERAL: Baskerville Balks at Uninsured Motorist Coverage Denial
MARCHESE & CO: Gomez-Velazquez Files Renewed Bid for Class Cert.

MCG HEALTH: Taylor Breach Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Woodstown-Pilesgrove Says
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Settlement Claim Form Deadline Set Oct. 1
META PLATFORMS: Apple Users File Lawsuit Over Data Privacy Issues
META PLATFORMS: Faces Privacy Class Action Suit in California

MICHELS PACIFIC: Bravo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: Appeals Prelim Injunction Order in Balow
MIDWEST DIVISION: Marquez Wins in Part Bid for Settlement Approval
MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz TCPA Suit Wins Class Certification
NATIONAL BANK: Ontario Ct. Certifies Class Suit Over Mutual Funds

NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
NEW AILY: Faces Biao Ji Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D. New York
NEW SOUTH WALES: Class Suit Mulled Over $16-Bil. WestConnex Project
NEW YORK THERAPEUTIC: Edmond Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
NHK SPRING: Parties Stipulate on Amended Briefing Schedule

NOMI HEALTH: Eltahir Loses Bid for Collective Action
NOVO NORDISK: Chaires, et al., Seek to Certify Classes
NU CARE: Marshall Suit Claims Unpaid Wages for Drivers/Caretakers
NYC HARLEM: Dunkin' Franchisees' Settlement Rejected for 2nd Time
OLO INC: Rosen Law Reminds Nov. 28 Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due

OPHTHOTECH CORP: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Micholle Suit
OPHTHOTECH CORP: Final Judgment & Order Entered in Micholle Suit
OPTAVIA LLC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Douglass Suit
OVERBY-SEAWELL CO: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Archer Claims
OVERBY-SEAWELL CO: West Files Suit in N.D. Georgia

PAGAYA INVESTMENTS: Cannatella Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
PENN MUTUAL: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
POLLEN: U.S.-Based Employee Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
PORTLAND, OR: Tozer Files ADA Suit in D. Oregon
PREMIER NUTRITION: Montera Appeals Judgment to 9th Cir.

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Fiber Supplements
QUANTA SERVICES: Ex- Employees File Class Suit Over 401(k) Funds
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Malriat Suit
R.C. BIGELOW: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Tea Products
RAPID PASADENA: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to April 14, 2023

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Leake Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation
RECKITT BENCKISER: Agreed Protective Order Issued in Sterling Suit
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Court Denies Bryce's Bid to Compel Discovery
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION: Berube Seeks to Certify Class Action
RUSH AUTO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Frenci Suit With Prejudice

SAM DOWIES: Court Junks Hicks Bid to Certify Class
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Users File Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
SANTA ANA MINI: Hunter Files Suit Over Unlawful Business Practices
SEDGWICK COUNTY, KS: District Court Dismisses Gilmore v. SCADC
SELECT CONCRETE: Faces Caballero FLSA Suit in M.D. Florida

SELECT HOME WARRANTY: Johnson-Gruver Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Ark.
SINGTEL OPTUS: May Face Class Action After Massive Data Breach
STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Violates Right to Free Speech, Collier Says
STATE FARM: Appeal Filed in Taylor Class Suit
STATE FARM: Averts Class Action Over Diminished Value Formula

SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Unlawfully Collects Debt, Carter Says
TAMKO BUILDING: Can Compel Summerfield to Arbitrate in Melnick Suit
TD AMERITRADE: Bruns Sues Over Unlawful Voice Print Recording
TD AMERITRADE: Court Certifies Class of Clients in Klein Suit
TD BANK: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Voice Prints

TESLA INC: Bid for Protective Order in Lynch Suit Granted in Part
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Forsy Seeks to Certify Class Action
TOUCHSTONE STRATEGIES: Johnson Suit Seeks Unpaid OT for Nurses
TOWER RESEARCH: Averts Class Action Suit Over Illegal Spoofing
TRUE BLUE: Glover Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Staffing Specialists

UNION PACIFIC: Bid for Summary Judgment in Donahue Suit Granted
UNITED PARCEL: Thistlewaite Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
UNITED PROPANE: Brummett Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
UNITED PROPANE: Brummett Suit Wins Conditional Class Status
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Graham v. Congress Without Prejudice

UNITED STATES: Law Firm Provides Update on Camp Lejeune Settlement
UNITED STATES: Stone, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Court Dismisses Smith Class Cert Bid
UTILITY TRAFFIC: Hunter Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
VELOCITY TRANSPORT: Lopez Labor Code Suit Goes to S.D. California

VERIFIED MOVING: Grajeda Suit Wins FLSA Collective Action Bid
VERIZON DATA: Kendall Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Audi Transmission Settlement Gets Final Approval
VOLUME SERVICES: Jeffries Seeks Final OK of Proposed Settlement
WALMART INC: Class Action Firm Wants to Keep All Attorney Fees

WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Subscription Service
WALMART INC: Lee Sues Over Misleading Subscription Services
WALTER KIDDE: Court Trims Fire Extinguisher Class Action Claims
WARNER BROS: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 22 Lead Plaintiff Naming Due
WELLS FARGO: Echard Class Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement

WERNER ENTERPRISES: Midgett Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
XPO LAST: Green, Tejada Win Class Certification Bid
ZAZZLE INC: Adams Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
ZILLOW GROUP: Intercepts Web Communications, Conlisk Suit Claims
[*] Western Australia Set to Introduce New Class Action Regime


                            *********

#1 BEDFORD DELI: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Milton Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. #1 BEDFORD DELI, CORP. a New York limited liability
company, and JOHN DOE, an individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-08156
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2022), is brought for unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, for violations of
the N.Y. Labor Law, and for violations of the "spread of hours" and
overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys fees,
and costs.

The Plaintiff work for the Defendants from Monday through Saturday,
6:00 AM to 3:00 PM. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, worked
approximately 54 hours per week. The defendants never granted the
plaintiff a male break or rest period of any kind. The plaintiff
was paid primarily in cash with no pay stubs provided. The
defendants failed to pay the plaintiff any overtime premium (time
and a half) for hours work over 40 in each work week. The
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of
hours" pay for any day in which he worked 10 hours or more. As part
of their regular business practice, the Defendants intentionally,
willfully, and repeatedly harm the Plaintiff by engaging in a
pattern, practice, and or policy of violating the FLSA and the
NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from May 2020 through April
23, 2022.

The Defendant is a delicatessen located in Bronx, New York doing
business as the Bedford Deli.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3M COMPANY: Emerson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Emerson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS,
INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC.,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-03012-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 7, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Phone: 631-600-0000
          Facsimile: 631-543-5450

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: Gaul Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Gaul, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS,
INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC.,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-03015-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 7, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
leukemia as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Phone: 631-600-0000
          Facsimile: 631-543-5450

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: Riley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Riley, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS,
INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC.,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-03013-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 7, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Phone: 631-600-0000
          Facsimile: 631-543-5450

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: Vialpando Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd Vialpando, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS,
INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC.,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-03014-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 7, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Phone: 631-600-0000
          Facsimile: 631-543-5450

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: Werick Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Werick, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS,
INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC.,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-02980-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 2, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Phone: 631-600-0000
          Facsimile: 631-543-5450

               - and -

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


88 FEATHERBED APPAREL: Aleheri Sues Over Sales Clerks' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FARIDAH ALEHERI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 88 FEATHERBED APPAREL CORP. d/b/a EXTREME
DEPARTMENT STORE, 1457 WESTCHESTER APPAREL CORP. d/b/a EXTREME
DEPARTMENT STORE, 204 CONCOURSE PLAZA DISCOUNT CORP. d/b/a EXTREME
DEPARTMENT STORE, 4697 3RD AVE DISCOUNT CORP. d/b/a EXTREME
DEPARTMENT STORE, MOHAMMAD SAFI, JOHN DOE NOS. 1-10 (said names
being unknown and fictitious), and JOHN ROE CORP. NOS. 1-10 (said
names being unknown and fictitious), Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-07994 (S.D.N.Y., September 19, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide proper
annual wage notices, failure to provide proper wage statements,
failure to provide spread-of-hours and split-shift pay, failure to
provide the required paid sick leave, and failure to pay timely
wages.

Ms. Aleheri was employed as a salesclerk at one of the Defendants'
stores located at 88 Featherbed Lane, Bronx, New York from April
2021 to July 2022.

88 Featherbed Apparel Corp. is an owner and operator of a
department store under the name Extreme Department Store, with its
principal place of business located at 88 Featherbed Lane, Bronx,
New York.

1457 Westchester Apparel Corp. is an owner and operator of a
department store under the name Extreme Department Store, with its
principal place of business located at 1457 Westchester Avenue,
Bronx, New York.

204 Concourse Plaza Discount Corp. is an owner and operator of a
department store under the name Extreme Department Store, with its
principal place of business located at 204 E. 161st Street, Bronx,
New York.

4697 3rd Ave Discount Corp. is an owner and operator of a
department store under the name Extreme Department Store, with its
principal place of business located in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Robert L. Lash, Esq.
         Scott K. Hur, Esq.
         Robert L. Lash, Esq.
         HUR, LASH & CHOE, LLP
         600 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 109
         Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
         Telephone: (212) 468-5590

A&W CONCENTRATE: Court Stays Dailey Class Suit Until Nov. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE DAILEY, v. A&W
CONCENTRATE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02732-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order staying case
until Nov. 30, 2022, and administratively terminating plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

The parties have stipulated to a stay of this case until November
30, 2022, so that they may focus their efforts on mediation and
potential resolution of this matter.

The Court approves the parties' stipulated request and stays this
case until November 30, 2022.

The Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, is
administratively terminated pending this stay. If the parties'
mediation efforts are unsuccessful, the Plaintiff may file a notice
renewing his motion. The motion will then be under submission based
on the briefs that have 9 been filed.

A&W Concentrate manufactures and sells alcoholic beverages. The
Company offers beers, wines, spirits, liquor, and other related
products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SshDaq at no extra charge.[CC]


ACME THERAPIES: Clifton Seeks Unpaid Wages for Therapy Assistants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATELIN CLIFTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACME THERAPIES, CO., Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00113-TTC (W.D. Va., September 19, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for unpaid regular and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Virginia Wage Payment
Act, and Virginia Overtime Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Certified
Occupational Therapy Assistant from approximately July 9, 2018
until July 25, 2022.

Acme Therapies, Co. is a provider of speech, occupational and
physical therapies, headquartered in Martinsville, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Brittany M. Haddox, Esq.
         Thomas E. Strelka, Esq.
         STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW
         Warehouse Row
         119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., Suite 330
         Roanoke, VA 24011
         Telephone: (540) 283-0802
         E-mail: brittany@strelkalaw.com
                 thomas@strelkalaw.com

                 - and -

         Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
         Zev H. Antell, Esq.
         BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
         140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
         Richmond, VA 23219
         Telephone: (804) 648-4848
         E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
                 zev@butlercurwood.com

ADVANTAGE PLUS: Pre-Class Cert Discovery Deadline Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garrett v. Advantage Plus
Credit Reporting Incorporated, Case No. 2:21-cv-02082 (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa entered an order on stipulation to
extend the modified pre-class certification discovery completion
deadline.

  -- The deadline to complete pre-class certification discovery
     related to the forthcoming MeridianLink production is
     extended 30 days to December 1, 2022.

  -- All other deadlines are otherwise confirmed.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]




AEI PAINTING: Fails to Provide Proper OT Wages, Orellana Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ORELLANA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. AEI PAINTING CONTRACTORS, LLC and
CHAD SKINNER, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-03661-MHC (N.D. Ga., Sept. 11, 2022) is a class action
seeking to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime premium pay,
owed to Plaintiff and the class members pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and supporting regulations.

The Plaintiff was employed with Defendants from approximately
January 1, 2019 to December 30, 2021. His job duties consisted of:
painting, preparing walls to be painted, caulking walls and tiles,
installing nylon on boards, and cleaning up after painting was
complete. He asserts that he was paid straight-time throughout his
employment, and did not receive any overtime wages, despite working
in excess of 40 hours throughout his employment.

The Defendants have been in the painting industry, performing
painting services for commercial and residential clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (678) 330-2909
          Facsimile: (678) 638-6201
          E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com

ALABAMA: Class Settlement in Singleton v. Cunningham Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JONATHAN SINGLETON, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HAL TAYLOR, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, and
DERRICK CUNNINGHAM, in his official capacity as Sheriff for
Montgomery County, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-99-WKW [WO] (M.D.
Ala.), Judge W. Keith Watkins of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division, grants the parties'
Joint Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement
Between Plaintiff and Defendant Derrick Cunningham Only.

On July 6, 2022, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving
the terms of the parties' settlement of the class claims against
Sheriff Derrick Cunningham and set a final approval hearing for
Sept. 8, 2022. Notice of the hearing, which was published in the
Montgomery Advertiser and through other means, set a 60-day
deadline for class members to object to the settlement agreement.

The counsel notified the Court on Sept. 6, 2022, that no objections
to the settlement agreement were received. On Sept. 8, 2022, a
final approval hearing was held. On Sept. 20, 2022, after
discussions at the fairness hearing and on the parties' joint
motion, the Court certified a sub-class for purposes of settlement
only.

Judge Watkins carefully has considered the stipulated settlement
agreement, the parties' joint brief in support of their motion, the
arguments at the final approval hearing, and the record as a whole.
Based upon the Rule 23(e)(2) and Bennett factors, he finds that the
stipulated settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Accordingly, Judge Watkins grants the Joint Motion for Final
Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement Between Plaintiff and
Defendant Derrick Cunningham Only.

Jurisdiction over the settlement agreement is retained for a period
of three years from the date of the Order.

The claims against Sheriff Cunningham are dismissed with prejudice,
and the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate him as a
party.

The action proceeds as to class claims against Hal Taylor, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Alabama Law Enforcement
Agency.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2s3zuhkb from Leagle.com.


ALBERTA: Class Action Over Delayed Bail Hearings Gets Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Parsons, writing for CBC News, reports that a class-action
lawsuit alleging that the Alberta government breached Charter
rights potentially thousands of times by denying people timely bail
hearings will go ahead.

In a decision filed in Calgary on Sept. 26, Court of King's Bench
Associate Chief Justice John Rooke certified a class-action suit
for individuals arrested between May 2, 2016, and Sept. 26, 2022,
who were caught up in what the plaintiffs allege was a systemic
breach of the province's bail system.

At issue is the Criminal Code requirement of a right to a bail
hearing within 24 hours of being arrested.

The plaintiffs allege that when the province changed how it runs
first-appearance bail hearings in late 2016, many people were held
in custody for longer than they should have been.

"The government has overall responsibility for the criminal justice
system," one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs Margaret Waddell
said in an interview on Sept. 27.

"If there's a presumption of innocence you shouldn't be
incarcerated unless there's good reason to hold you."

Waddell said they have to wait for the province to disclose how
many "overholds" -- being held beyond 24 hours without a bail
hearing -- occurred within the period identified in the lawsuit,
but it is expected to be a significant number.

Thousands of delayed hearings
According to provincial data highlighted in Rooke's decision,
between March 2018 and June 2020 nearly 17,000 people were subject
to overholds, which amounts to about 12 per cent of all arrestees.


Waddell said qualified class members are those who would have been
released had they had a timely bail hearing or those who were
ultimately acquitted.

She added that it's her understanding that overholds decreased
significantly in 2020.

To proceed to a trial, a class action must be certified by a judge
who finds certain criteria has been met.

Lawyers for the provincial government opposed the certification on
several grounds, including that the justice minister can't
micromanage police agencies responsible for arranging bail
hearings, and that the lawsuit doesn't address the cause of the
delay.

Rooke rejected that argument.

"It is the fact of delay beyond 24 hours, not the individual causes
or who caused the delay that is relevant to certification," he
wrote.

Provincial bail reform
Previously in Alberta, if an accused was in custody and had a bail
hearing at a police station before an on-call justice of the peace,
police officers would act as prosecutors at the hearing.

But calls for change followed the 2015 shooting death of RCMP
Const. David Wynn, who was killed by Shawn Rehn shortly after Rehn
was released on bail despite having outstanding criminal charges.

Supreme Court will hear case of Edmonton man who waited too long
for bail hearing
Following a review of the bail system and a judge's finding that
police have no legal authority to act during bail hearings, Alberta
began having prosecutors take on the role.

Waddell said the alleged problems with delay started in late 2016
when the province started changing the process.

In April 2017, Ryan Reilly was arrested on charges related to
domestic violence allegations. He was held for 36 hours in a cell
at police headquarters in Edmonton before finally getting a
15-minute bail hearing -- 12 hours after the time limit allowed
under the Criminal Code.

After a lower court stayed the charges against Reilly on the
grounds that his Charter rights had been violated, Crown
prosecutors successfully appealed at the provincial level, but the
case made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which restored
the stay in 2020.

Reilly filed the class-action lawsuit in 2018, but a different man,
identified as MS in filings, will act as the named plaintiff in the
case. Waddell said Reilly has stepped away for personal reasons.

Waddell said MS was held for 26 hours without a bail hearing and
was ultimately acquitted of the crimes he was accused of.

Early on, the plaintiffs filed that they were seeking $100 million
in damages, but Waddell said that the actual award being sought
won't be clear until they have a better idea of how many people are
included in the class.

Alberta has 30 days to appeal the certification decision. [GN]

ALDEN GROUP: Nursing Facilities File Class Suit Over Understaffing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of six area nursing facilities filed a class action suit
against the Alden Group, one of the largest health care providers
for older adults in Illinois, seeking to end chronic and
intentional understaffing at the facilities. The complaint alleges
Alden attracts thousands of residents to its facilities, and then
systematically understaffs those facilities, leading to neglect,
preventable injuries and illnesses, and dangerous and often grossly
unsanitary living conditions for the residents. According to the
complaint, Alden saves millions of dollars each year by refusing to
hire sufficient staff to comply with legal staffing requirements
and intentionally hiding it from regulators.

AARP Foundation, Levin & Perconti, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick &
Dym, Ltd., and Equip for Equality are representing the class. The
plaintiffs reside in Alden Lakeland, Alden Terrace McHenry, Alden
Town Manor, Alden Heather Healthcare Center, Alden Princeton
Rehabilitation and Health Care Center and Alden Village North
facilities. The plaintiffs seek monetary, declaratory and
injunctive relief to correct dangerous conditions that have
resulted from understaffing at the facilities. Plaintiffs also seek
to prevent Alden's efforts to keep facility residents from holding
the facilities accountable through court action. They allege that
Alden's neglect and use of unfair business practices to conceal the
resulting harms violate the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

"The goal with this class action is to finally end the chronic
understaffing at Alden facilities. It will also send a strong
message to other nursing homes and assisted living facilities that
they too will be held accountable for intentional understaffing,"
says Steven Levin, of Levin & Perconti, a Chicago law firm
nationally noted for its work on behalf of nursing home residents.
"As Alden profits, residents pay the price. We see the results
every day as we represent residents who suffered severe injuries
from falls, acquired pressure ulcers that worsened without
treatment, or waited indefensibly long periods to be diagnosed with
potentially life-threatening conditions."

"Nursing facilities have a responsibility to meet the
individualized needs of every resident. That is not happening at
these Alden facilities," says William Alvarado Rivera, Senior Vice
President of Litigation at AARP Foundation. "It is imperative that
residents can hold them accountable in court through private rights
of action for abusive and neglectful practices."

The complaint alleges Alden profits by operating its facilities
with inadequate numbers of certified nursing assistants, licensed
practical nurses, registered nurses, dietary staff and therapists
and cites numerous examples of how residents were neglected,
injured or suffered preventable health conditions when they were
deprived of the services they needed. According to the complaint,
most of the six Alden Chicago area facilities named in the
complaint provided less than 50% of the necessary hours of nursing
care for residents from 2018 to 2020 Alden Facilities should have
provided more than 1 million additional nursing assistant hours,
and 300,000 more hours of skilled nursing care from registered
nurses and licensed practical nurses. The complaint alleges Alden
staffing was significantly below even the absolute statutory
minimum required nursing hours at every Alden facility named in the
complaint during the time period from 2018 through 2020.

The complaint alleges Alden has also lied about its staffing levels
to regulators, and according to some employees, even falsified
documents with "ghost staffing," claiming people were working who
were either no longer employed by Alden or off work at the time.
According to the suit, Alden's profit-driven scheme also requires
residents to sign illegal admission agreements that prevent them
from suing when injuries do occur due to the understaffing.

"The suit is necessary because when facility owners and operators
flout their duties and cause harm to the most vulnerable, it is
imperative that residents can hold them accountable in court
through private rights of action for abusive and neglectful
practices," says Charlie Wysong of Hughes Socol Piers Resnick &
Dym. "In this class action, the residents in these facilities are
banding together to fight Alden's cruel abuse. The problems at
these facilities are systemic and intentional, and cannot be
addressed in separate claims."

"This litigation seeks to address the systemic neglect Alden
residents experience on an all-too frequent basis," says Barry C.
Taylor, Vice President for Civil Rights and Systemic Litigation at
Equip for Equality. "As a result of Illinois's over-reliance on
institutional settings, many people with disabilities have no other
option but to live in large nursing facilities. Despite this lack
of community living opportunities, people with disabilities should
not be subjected to inadequate institutional care with tragic
consequences."

If you or someone you know has concerns about the care provided in
an Alden facility named in the lawsuit, please contact us at
312-566-0443 or AldenLitigation@equipforequality.org.

AARP Foundation
AARP Foundation works to end senior poverty by helping vulnerable
people over 50 build economic opportunity. Its approach emphasizes
equitable outcomes for populations that have faced systemic
discrimination. As AARP's charitable affiliate, it serves AARP
members and nonmembers alike. Through vigorous legal advocacy and
evidence-based solutions, and by building supportive community
connections, it fosters resilience, advance equity, and restore
hope.

Equip for Equality

Equip for Equality (EFE) is the federally mandated,
Governor-designated Protection and Advocacy System for people with
disabilities in Illinois. EFE's mission is to advance the civil and
human rights of people with disabilities through self-advocacy
assistance, legal representation, systems change litigation, public
policy advocacy and independent monitoring. For more information,
visit www.equipforequality.org

Levin & Perconti
Levin & Perconti is a nationally renowned law firm committed to
protecting and vindicating the rights of people who have been
injured due to systemic flaws and corporations choosing profits
over people. Levin & Perconti is a pioneer in nursing home
litigation, advocating for seniors and other vulnerable populations
for more than 30 years. The firm concentrates on all types of
personal injury, medical malpractice, nursing home, and wrongful
death litigation. Please visit www.levinperconti.com for more
information.

Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym
("HSPRD") is Chicago-based law firm with a national practice
specializing in complex public interest litigation. HSPRD has
litigated class actions against governments and large corporations
on behalf of seniors, whistleblowers, consumers, employees, and
victims of abuse, discrimination, and wage theft. For more
information, visit www.hsplegal.com. [GN]

ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Burchfield RICO Suit in E.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY C. BURCHFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING LIMITED
("ALIBABA"); ALIBABA.COM, INC. ("ALIBABA"); JACK YUN MA, JOSEPH C.
TSAI, JONATHAN ZHAOXI LU, MAGGIE WEI WU, DAVID ZHANG, third-party
sellers of isopropylbenzylamine on Alibaba.com; ZICHANG NEW
MATERIALS (SHANDONG) CO., LTD.; ERICA WANG; SWEETY YIN; SHAANXI
BLOOM TECH CO., LTD. (ALEX VIVI), ETC); CASEY ZHAO; GERA VID SO;
SHAANXI BLOOM TECH CO., LTD. (ALEX VIVI); SHANDONG LOOK CHEMICAL
COMPANY; TIMOTHY J. SHEA; and UTTAM DHILLON, Defendants, Case No.
4:22-cv-00861-LPR (E.D. Ark., September 19, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants, in kind, have
established an enterprise to engage in the unlawful selling of
methamphetamine with a chemical formula of C10H15N on Alibaba.com
with the name isopropylbenzylamine and shipped via mail as a rust
inhibitor and acrylic nail resin as well as under the name calcium
acetate and poly-vinyl alcohol. As a result of the Defendants'
misrepresentation on Alibaba website that they are selling legal
product, the Plaintiff was arrested with half a gram of the
substance in April of 2021 and charged with possession of
methamphetamine. The misrepresentation has cause multiple legal and
monetary problems for the Plaintiff in an amount exceeding $90,000,
says the suit.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited is a multinational technology company
based in China.

Alibaba.com, Inc. is an electronic commerce company based in
China.

Zichang New Materials (Shandong) Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of
cosmetic raw, food additive, and other products, headquartered in
China.

Shaanxi Bloom Tech Co., Ltd. is a chemical company based in China.

Shandong Look Chemical Company is a chemical manufacturer in China.
[BN]

ALL FLORIDA: Healey Seeks Conditional FLSA Collective Status
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as  JASON HEALEY, and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), v. ALL
FLORIDA SAFETY INSTITUTE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00995-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the following
collective of similarly situated Instructors:

   "All Instructors who worked for Defendant in Florida who were
   required to undergo a training period during previous three
   years."

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs surpass the lenient
burden for conditional certification with evidence demonstrating
that all Instructors are similarly situated because they are all
uniformly misclassified as exempt employees during their initial
training period. The Plaintiff's evidence includes highly detailed
declarations which attest to Defendant’s blanket
misclassification of Instructors during training, evidence of the
number of Instructors employed by Defendant, the hours worked by
Instructors, and their typical duties during the training periods.

The Plaintiff also provides evidence of the Defendant's online job
postings for Instructors -- all of which specifically mention the
training period at issue in this lawsuit. The Plaintiff further
provide evidence that Instructors have already joined this action
and that other Instructors would join if given notice, the lawsuit
adds.

AFS owns and operates a driving school that provides instructional
services throughout Florida in at least 23 locations. The Plaintiff
worked with dozens of similarly situated Instructors who performed
identical duties and were required to complete a training period at
the inception of their employment in which they worked more than 40
hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff filed this collective action lawsuit seeking to
recover wages from Defendant based on violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), for failure to pay proper overtime wages to
himself and all other Instructors during their training period.
Defendant requires Instructors to work more than 40 hours in a
workweek during their initial training period without compensating
them applicable federal overtime wages.

All Florida is a driving school serving Florida.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 16,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SDjpFx
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10 th Ave. Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  jake@jordanrichardspllc.com



ALLIANCE FOR SHARED: Bids to Dismiss Bandy Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARTIN BANDY, Plaintiff v. ALLIANCE FOR SHARED HEALTH,
INC., and CHRISTIAN DISCOUNT ALLIANCE, LLC d/b/a SHARED HEALTH
ALLIANCE, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00025-SMJ (E.D. Wash.),
Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington grants in part and denies in part
Alliance's Motion to Dismiss and Christian's Motion to Dismiss.

Mr. Bandy brings the class action under the Washington Consumer
Protection Act (CPA), WASH. REV. CODE Section 19.86, and contract
law, against Defendants Alliance for Shared Health (ASH), and
Christian Discount Alliance d/b/a Shared Health Alliance (SHA), on
behalf of himself and other Washington consumers who were allegedly
marketed and sold unauthorized health insurance plans that were
deceptively marketed as being offered by a Health Care Sharing
Ministry in Washington by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff enrolled in an ASH healthcare plan on April 24, 2020,
paying a $125 one-time enrollment fee and a monthly premium of
approximately $355.50. Once enrolled, the Plaintiff received what
he believed was an insurance card from ASH. The insurance card
purportedly certified the Plaintiff's membership in a "Health Care
Sharing" community. In June 2021, after experiencing symptoms of a
stroke, he received care at the emergency room and was admitted to
the hospital, where he continued to receive extensive care. When he
tried to have these costs covered by what he believed was his
insurance, the Defendants denied the Plaintiff's claims for
coverage of services in the emergency room and during his overnight
stay at the hospital. The complaint alleges the Plaintiff was
forced to pay out-of-pocket for services he believed would be
covered by ASH, and now has more than $40,000 in medical debt,
which he continues to pay.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants entered into illegal contracts
and engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices by illegally
acting as insurers and selling sham plans to more than 3,000
Washingtonians in violation of contract law and the Washington CPA.
The Defendants both now move to dismiss the action.

ASH argues the Plaintiff's three claims should be dismissed as (1)
the illegal contract claim fails because the Plaintiff has not --
and cannot -- establish the plan as an insurance contract, (2) the
Plaintiff cannot state a claim for unfair business practices, as
ASH's disclosures bar this claim, and (3) the deceptive business
practices claim is deficient because it does not comply with Rule
9(b).

SHA argues the Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because (1)
the Plaintiff did not have a contract with SHA, and (2) the
Plaintiff cannot sue under the CPA because he never interacted with
or had a relationship with SHA.

First, the Plaintiff alleges that the insurance plans he and other
Washingtonians entered with Defendants are illegal contracts
because Defendants were not authorized to issue health insurance in
Washington. The Defendants have provided two general arguments
against Plaintiff's common law claim for illegal contract. First,
that ASH is a Health Care Sharing Ministry (HCSM) and is therefore
exempt form more onerous state and federal insurance laws, and
second, that even if ASH is not an HCSM, the Plaintiff's
allegations do not support a claim that the plans at issue are
insurance. Neither of these arguments prove persuasive.

Taking the plausible allegations as true, Judge Mendoza finds that
the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that ASH is not a valid
HCSM. Although ASH argues that it is a continuation of the entity
known as the Bible Army International Church (BAIC) which has been
operating since or before 1999, the Plaintiff provides plausible
reason to doubt this claim. As such, disposition on this contested
issue is inappropriate at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The Defendants next argue that dismissal is appropriate because
ASH's plan, as alleged, does not qualify as insurance under
Washington law.

Looking to the provided Member Guidelines and taking the
Plaintiff's plausible allegations as true, Judge Mendoza finds that
ASH's health plans meet these elements. Because ASH provides a plan
that shares 100% of bills to members, he finds the Plaintiff has
sufficiently pled ASH is an insurer; the "members" are the insured
or beneficiaries; the "MRA" is a premium payment, and the plan
provides a way to pay for loss or injuries, as set out in the
schedules.

Given the language of the plans and the issued ID cards that are to
be shown to providers upon request for insurance, the Complaint
plausibly alleges that the Defendants issued insurance. Regardless
of how many disclaimers and attestations they put forth, the
content of the plans, as alleged, are virtually indistinguishable
from those of a health insurance plan. As such, the Plaintiff has
met his burden at this stage, and Judge Mendoza denies the motion
to dismiss this claim.

The Plaintiff alleges that because ASH's health plans are not
licensed with the State of Washington and do not comply with the
ACA or Washington law, the Defendant engaged in unfair business
practices under the CPA. The Complaint also alleges that the
Defendants' plans failed to provide coverage for treatments and
conditions that are mandated "essential" benefits under the ACA and
Washington law. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's CPA claim
based on unfair business practices is barred because the Guidelines
disclosed the alleged statutory violations that the Plaintiff
alleges are unfair.

Judge Mendoza finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
that ASH's health plans were in violation of the ACA and Washington
law, as ASH was plausibly not a valid HCSM and therefore was not
exempt from obtaining a certificate of authority from the
Washington Insurance Commission. Absent a certificate of authority,
the health plans were illegal, and allegations of illegality
satisfy the CPA's unfair practice element. As such, Judge Mendoza
denies the motion to dismiss the unfair business practice theory of
the Plaintiff's CPA claim.

Next, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's CPA deceptive
practices claim must be subjected to Rule 9(b)'s heightened
pleading standard and, evaluating the claim under that standard,
the claim must be dismissed. Judge Mendoza agrees. However, he
finds no evidence of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive,
failure to cure deficiencies, or futility of amendment, and when
given the opportunity to address prejudice, ASH's counsel offered
only that having a pending case against ASH that alleges deceptive
practices is harmful to the organization. The mere fact that a
company's reputation may be harmed by a deceptive practices claim
filed against it is not enough for the Court to deny the Plaintiff
leave to amend his deceptive-practices claim.

Accordingly, Judge Mendoza grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss. The Plaintiff's claim for deceptive
business practices in violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff's
claims for illegal contract and unfair business practices in
violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act remain.

Judge Mendoza grants the Plaintiff leave to file a first amended
complaint by no later than Oct. 13, 2022.

The Clerk's Office is directed to enter the Order and provide
copies to all counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4yypznvm from Leagle.com.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Status Report Submission Extended to Oct. 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF OLBERG, an
individual, CECILIA ANA PALAO-VARGAS, an individual, MICHAEL
CLOTHIER, an individual, and JACOB THOMPSON, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation and ALLSTATE FIRE AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, and CCC
INTELLIGENT INCORPORATED, a Delaware  Corporation, Case No.
2:18-cv-00573-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour
entered an order extending deadline to submit joint status report
to October 21, 2022.

On July 7, 2022, the Parties filed a stipulated motion to extend
deadline to submit joint status report, which the court granted on
July 7, 2022, extending the deadline to submit a joint status
report to August 22, 2022.

On August 19, 2022, the Parties filed a stipulated motion to extend
deadline to submit joint status report, which the court granted on
August 22, 2022, extending the deadline to submit a joint status
report to September 21, 2022.

The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company,
headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook
since 1967.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y2hmmB at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          John M. DeStefano, Esq.
          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Elizabeth T. Beardsley, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101

               - and -

          David L. Woloshin, Esq.
          Dina S. Ronsayro, Esq.
          ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP
          200 South Broad Street, Suite 600
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

               - and -

          Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
          AXLER GOLDICH LLC
          1520 Locust Street, Suite 301
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

The Attorneys for the Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and
Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, are:

          Peter J. Valeta, Esq.
          Wendy Enerson, Esq.
          Peter J. Valeta, Esq.
          Cozen O'Connor, Esq.
          123 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 382-3100
          E-mail: wenerson@cozen.com
                  pvaleta@cozen.com

The Attorneys for the Defendant CCC Intelligent Solutions Inc.,
are:

          Kathleen M. O'Sullivan, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 583-8888
          Facsimile: (206) 583-8500
          E-mail: KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com

The Attorneys for the Defendant CCC Intelligent Solutions Inc.

          Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq.
          Jason R. Burt, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 11th Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          E-mail: marguerite.sullivan@lw.com
                  jason.burt@lw.com

The Attorneys for Defendant CCC Information Services Inc., are:

          Steven J. Pacini, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          200 Clarendon Street, 27th Floor
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 880-4516
          E-mail: steven.pacini@lw.com

The Attorneys for Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and
Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, are:

          Anusha E. Jones, Esq.
          William H. Walsh, WSBA No. 21911
          Cozen O’Connor
          999 Third Avenue, Suite 1900
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 340-1000
          Facsimile: (206) 340-1000
          E-mail: wwalsh@cozen.com
                  aejones@cozen.com

ALTUS JOBS: Klinakis Hits Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------
ALEXA KLINAKIS, JORDAN KRAVETZKY, NICOLE WHITE, ANRICH BEKKER,
MATEO VELEZ, LANEY HEIDRICH, CLAUDIA RODRIGUEZ, ERIC TAYLOR, and
ANGIE CIPRIANO on behalf of themselves and as representatives of
other class and collective action members similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ALTUS JOBS, LLC, and SAUM DUSTIN SHARIFI, Defendants,
Case No. 6:22-cv-01756 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 24, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' engagement in a pattern and practice of refusing to
compensate Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs brought this suit against the Defendants to recover
payment of all hours worked by each of them for which Altus did not
properly compensate them (including minimum wage, overtime wages,
and otherwise unpaid wages owed), liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest in the event liquidated damages are not awarded, and any
damages experienced as a result of Defendant's retaliatory acts.
The Plaintiff also seeks attorneys' fees and costs, and all other
relief to which they may be entitled at law or in equity.

The Plaintiffs and putative collective action members, are or were
employed by Altus at any time from 2017 to the entry of judgment in
this case.

Altus Jobs, LLC is a staffing and recruiting company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin K. Ross-Andino, Esq.
          Jolynn M. Falto, Esq.
          Nikki J. Pappas, Esq.
          Crisol Lopez-Palafox, Esq.
          ECLAT LAW, LLP
          307 Cranes Roost Blvd Ste 2010
          Altamonte Springs, FL 32701-3441
          Telephone: (407) 636-7004
          E-mail: kevin.ross@eclatlaw.com
                  Jfalto@eclatlaw.com
                  nikki.pappas@eclatlaw.com
                  crisol.lopezpalafox@eclatlaw.com

AMAZON WEB: Dorian Wins Leave to File First Amended Class Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACINDA DORIAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00269-JHC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John H.
Chun of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Complaint.

The substituted Plaintiffs, Avelardo Rivera and Yasmine Romero,
will file their First Amended Class Action Complaint. The Defendant
will respond to the First Amended Class Action Complaint by Oct.
19, 2022. If the Defendant files a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Class Action Complaint, Rivera and Romero will respond to
the motion by Nov. 2, 2022, and the Defendant will file a reply in
support of the motion by Nov. 16, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5n8cwwnc from Leagle.com.

Wright A. Noel -- wright@carsonnoel.com -- CARSON NOEL PLLC, in
Issaquah, Washington.

J. Eli Wade-Scott -- ewadescott@edelson.com -- Schuyler Ufkes --
sufkes@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, in Chicago, Illinois.

Philip L. Fraietta -- pfraietta@bursor.com -- Alec M. Leslie --
aleslie@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER, P.A., in New York City.

Christopher R. Reilly -- creilly@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER,
P.A., in Miami, Florida.

Randall K. Pulliam -- info@cbplaw.com -- Samuel R. Jackson, CARNEY
BATES AND PULLIAM, PLLC, in Little Rock, Arkansas, *Admitted pro
hac vice, Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class.


AMAZON.COM: Gorgas Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Benita Gorgas, Nelson Gorgas, individually and
on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Amazon.Com, Inc.,
Amazon.Com Services, LLC., Amazon.com, LLC, Amazon Web Services,
Inc., Case No. 2020-CH-07737 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of
Illinois on Sept. 21, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-05159 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com/-- is an American
multinational technology company that focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ryan Spear, Esq.
          Erin Kathleen Earl, Esq.
          Susan D Fahringer, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE, LLP
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 359-8000
          Email: rspear@perkinscoie.com
                 eearl@perkinscoie.com
                 SFahringer@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Kathleen A. Stetsko, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          131 S. Dearborn St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 324-8400
          Email: kstetsko@perkinscoie.com


AMERICAN FEDERATION: 4th Cir. Affirms Mattos Class Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY MATTOS; DORIS BEEGLE; VICKIE BOGGS; BRADLEY
FRENCH; CARLA GURGANUS; STEVEN HALE; JOHN HILL; BENJAMIN ICKES;
MICHELLE LAMBERT; JESSICA MERRITT; JOHN MEYERS; CAROLE MILLER;
MELISSA POTTER; JIM RIEMAN; LAURIE RUBIN; JOYCE STONER; RUSSELL
STOTT; LARRY TEETS, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and KIMBERLY GRIFFITH, Plaintiffs
v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO, COUNCIL 3, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-1531 (4th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms the
district court's order dismissing the Appellants' putative class
action complaint.

Plaintiff Mattos, an employee of the Maryland Department of Public
Safety and Correctional Services, along with various other Maryland
state employees (collectively "Appellants"), appeal from the
district court's order dismissing their putative class action
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO,
Council 3 ("AFSCME"), a labor union that represented Maryland
public sector employees.

The Appellants filed their complaint after the Supreme Court
decided, in Janus v. American Federation of State, County &
Municipal Employees Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448, 2486 (2018), that
"public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from
nonconsenting employees." The complaint alleged that the
Appellants, who were not union members, were required to pay agency
fees to AFSCME as a condition of employment pursuant to a
collective bargaining agreement AFSCME had with the State from 2011
to 2018. They sought to recover the amounts paid in agency fees
prior to the Janus decision. The district court granted AFSCME's
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, finding that the
Appellants' claim was barred by AFSCME's good-faith defense.

On appeal, the Appellants argue that the district court erred in
allowing AFSCME to assert a good-faith defense to its 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 claim, and that the Fourth Circuit should decline to
recognize a good-faith defense. However, after the Appellants'
brief was filed, the Fourth Circuit decided the issue of whether a
union can assert a good-faith defense in a Janus claim under
Section 1983 in Akers v. Maryland State Educ. Ass'n, 990 F.3d 375
(4th Cir. 2021). It concluded, in accordance with six other courts
of appeals, that the good-faith defense is available to private
parties sued under Section 1983, and that the union was entitled to
assert the good-faith defense in the Janus context. Because Akers
directly applies to the legal question at issue, the Fourth Circuit
holds that the district court did not err in determining that
AFSCME was entitled to assert a good-faith defense and granting
AFSCME's motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirms the district court's
order. It dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before it and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yc6uvbdm from Leagle.com.

ON BRIEF: Brian K. Kelsey -- bkelsey@libertyjusticecenter.org --
Reilly Stephens -- rstephens@libertyjusticecenter.org -- LIBERTY
JUSTICE CENTER, Chicago, Illinois; Aaron Solem, NATIONAL RIGHT TO
WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, in Springfield, Virginia, for the
Appellants.

Leon Dayan -- ldayan@bredhoff.com -- Jacob Karabell --
jkarabell@bredhoff.com -- BREDHOFF & KAISER, P.L.L.C., in
Washington, D.C., for the Appellee.


AMERICAN HONDA: Raynaldo Class Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD RAYNALDO, et al., Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HONDA
MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants Honda's motion to dismiss
all claims in the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint.

On Sept. 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint ("ACAC") against Honda. They bring the proposed class
action against Honda, alleging that certain models of vehicles that
Honda manufactures, develops, and services, namely the Honda CR-V
(model years 2017-2019) and Honda Accord (model years 2016-2019),
suffer from a "parasitic draining" defect. "Parasitic draining
occurs when electrical components in a vehicle fail to shut down
once the vehicle is parked and turned off, which, in turn, allows
the components to continue consuming power from the battery."

The Plaintiffs do not identify in the ACAC the "electrical
components" whose failure to shut down allegedly causes parasitic
draining. They aver that, if not repaired, the alleged defect
"results in the premature obsolescence of the vehicle's battery and
various related component failures," which can lead a vehicle to
stop while being driven or can cause "federally mandated safety
features such as emergency hazard lights and headlights to fail."
The Plaintiffs aver that the alleged defect was "inherent" in
Honda's "design and/or manufacturing process" and, accordingly,
"each" of the vehicles at issue was delivered to consumers with the
alleged defect. Honda has "yet to offer a reliable solution" to the
alleged defect; it has only "instructed its dealers to update
internal software and replace dead batteries in certain" of the
vehicles at issue, but neither of those corrective actions actually
"remedies" the alleged defect.

The vehicles at issue are subject to a "New Vehicle Limited
Warranty" ("NVLW"), which requires Honda to "repair or replace any
part that is defective in material or workmanship under normal use"
within 36,000 miles or three years of when the vehicle is delivered
to the first purchaser by a Honda dealer or the vehicle is leased.

Each Plaintiff purchased or leased one of the vehicles at issue
and, at an unspecified time after purchasing or leasing the
vehicle, allegedly experienced unspecified "issues" with the
vehicle as a result of the alleged defect. The Plaintiffs allege
that, as a result of the presence of the alleged defect in their
vehicles, their vehicles are not "safe or reliable" as advertised
by Honda. They allege that Honda's failure to disclose the presence
of the alleged defect in the vehicles at issue precluded them from
receiving the benefit of the bargain in connection with their
purchase or lease of the vehicles, as the presence of the alleged
defect has significantly diminished the vehicles' value.

The Plaintiffs assert 33 claims against Honda, which arise under
the laws of the following nine states: California, Michigan,
Arizona, Iowa, Nevada, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, and
Michigan. The claims are premised on allegations that generally
fall within three broad categories: fraudulent omission or
concealment; breach of express warranty; and breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability. The Plaintiffs seek damages; equitable
remedies that include restitution, disgorgement, and injunctive
relief; and attorneys' fees and costs.

Pending before the Court is Honda's motion to dismiss all claims in
the ACAC. It contends that all asserted claims in the ACAC fail for
several reasons, including that (1) the Plaintiffs do not
adequately allege the presence of a defect in the vehicles at
issue; (2) the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that Honda
engaged in fraudulent omissions or concealment; (3) the Plaintiffs
fail to plausibly allege that Honda breached the NVLW; (4) the
Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that Honda breached an implied
warranty of merchantability; (5) the Plaintiffs fail to show that
they can seek equitable remedies; and (6) all asserted claims that
arise out of California law are subject to dismissal to the extent
that they are asserted on behalf of any Plaintiffs or proposed
class members who do not reside in, or lack a meaningful connection
to, California.

AS to Honda's first argument, Judge Gilliam agrees with Honda that
the ACAC lacks allegations that identify the part or system of the
vehicles at issue that is affected by the alleged parasitic
draining defect. He also agrees with Honda that the Plaintiffs have
failed to plausibly allege that the alleged parasitic draining
defect causes the battery problems and component failures described
in the ACAC.

While the Plaintiffs point to allegations in the ACAC showing that
unidentified people submitted complaints to the NHTSA or posted
complaints online regarding battery problems that they experienced
with their vehicles (which were among the models at issue), these
allegations do not raise the inference that the battery problems
are attributable to a parasitic draining defect in the vehicles'
electrical systems or any other common component or system. The
Court finds the authorities that they cite for the proposition that
their allegations are sufficient to plead a defect are
distinguishable.

Accordingly, Judge Gilliam concludes that the allegations in the
ACAC are insufficient to provide fair notice to Honda of the
alleged defect. Because the Plaintiffs do not dispute that each of
their claims is subject dismissal to the extent that they fail to
provide adequate notice to Honda of the alleged defect, he grants
Honda's motion to dismiss all claims, with leave to amend.

Honda moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' omission-based claims on the
grounds that: (1) the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s
pleading standard; (2) the Plaintiffs fail to plead pre-sale
knowledge; (3) they fail to plead that Honda engaged in active
concealment; and (4) the claims of some Plaintiffs are subject to
dismissal for additional reasons that are specific to the laws of
the states under which the claims arise.

Judge Gilliam holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead with
the required degree of specificity what Honda should have disclosed
but didn't. Their allegations do not satisfy the heightened
pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) for that reason. The Plaintiffs'
allegations regarding consumer complaints about battery problems in
other Honda models not at issue do not supply that missing
connection, because the Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts
suggesting that the other vehicle models shared a common defective
part or system.

The Plaintiffs also do not allege that Honda ever replaced any
"electrical system" in the vehicles with an equally defective
electrical system. Accordingly, the ACAC does not plausibly plead
that Honda took affirmative acts to conceal the alleged defect.
And, because the parties' briefing of these issues is not
sufficiently comprehensive, and because dismissal of the claims in
question is warranted for multiple other reasons, Judge Gilliam
declines to reach Honda's additional arguments at this time.

Honda argues that the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of express
warranty are subject to dismissal because Plaintiffs have not
plausibly alleged that Honda breached the NVLW. It contends that to
plausibly allege that Honda breached the NVLW by failing to repair
or remedy the alleged defect, Plaintiffs must allege facts raising
the inference that (1) the NVLW was in effect when they experienced
"issues" with their vehicles; (2) the alleged defect is a "material
or workmanship" defect covered by the NVLW; and (3) Plaintiffs
provided Honda with an opportunity to repair or replace parts of
the vehicles at issue that were affected by the alleged defect.

Honda's arguments are well-taken, Judge Gilliam finds. He says (i)
the Plaintiffs have not plausibly pled that the NVLW's durational
and mileage limitations are procedurally unconscionable and urges
them to consider carefully whether they can truthfully plead facts
sufficient to plausibly allege that the NVLW's terms "shock the
conscience" before repeating their unconscionability argument in
any amended complaint; (ii) the Plaintiffs' allegations are
insufficient to plausibly connect such battery problems to a
parasitic draining defect in the vehicles' electrical systems or
any other common component or system; and (iii) the Plaintiffs'
express-warranty claims are subject to dismissal for failing to
plead that they provided Honda with an opportunity to remedy the
alleged defect in their vehicles under the terms of the NVLW.

Honda moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability on the grounds that (1) any implied
warranty is limited to the duration of the NVLW, but the Plaintiffs
have not averred facts showing that the alleged defect manifested
in their vehicles while the NVLW was in effect; (2) the Plaintiffs
do not plead facts showing that their vehicles are unmerchantable
as a result of the alleged defect; and (3) the implied-warranty
claims of some Plaintiffs fail for additional reasons that are
based on the laws of the states under which the claims arise.

Judge Gilliam holds that (i) because Honda's arguments about the
limitations on the implied warranty of merchantability depend on
the Court's consideration of Exhibit A under the
incorporation-by-reference doctrine, he does not reach those
arguments at this juncture; (ii) the Plaintiffs' implied-warranty
claims are subject to dismissal for failure to plausibly plead that
the vehicles at issue are unmerchantable; and (iii) because the
parties' briefing of these issues is not sufficiently
comprehensive, and because dismissal of the claims in question is
warranted for multiple other reasons, he declines to reach Honda's
additional arguments at this time.

The Plaintiffs seek equitable remedies, including restitution,
disgorgement, and injunctive relief in connection with a number of
their claims. Honda argues that all of the Plaintiffs' requests for
equitable relief fail because Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege
that they have standing to seek injunctive relief or that they lack
an adequate remedy at law.

Judge Gilliam finds that (i) the Plaintiffs' allegations fail to
raise the inference that the Plaintiffs are "previously deceived
consumers" who are under threat of being deceived again if the
conduct that deceived them previously is not enjoined, so all of
their requests for injunctive relief are subject to dismissal for
lack of standing; and (ii) all of their requests and claims for
equitable relief are subject to dismissal because they do not
allege facts in the ACAC suggesting that legal remedies would be
inadequate to redress any past or prospective injuries that they
may have suffered or could suffer as a result that same course of
conduct.

The Plaintiffs seek to assert certain claims that arise out of
California law on behalf of a proposed nationwide class comprised
of "all persons in the United States and its territories who are
current or former owners and/or lessees of" the vehicles at issue.
Honda argues that the Court should find that because material
differences exist between California law and the relevant laws of
other states, the claims of non-California Plaintiffs and proposed
class members should not be governed by California law.

Relying on Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581, 594
(9th Cir. 2012), Honda moves to dismiss all claims under California
law that the Plaintiffs seek to assert on behalf of the proposed
nationwide class to the extent that the claims would be asserted on
behalf of any Plaintiff or proposed class member who does not
reside in California or lacks meaningful contacts with California.
It contends that the Court should conduct a conflict-of-law
analysis under Mazza at the pleading stage to determine what state
law should govern the claims of non-California Plaintiffs and
proposed class members.

Judge Gilliam is not persuaded that taking a different approach in
the action is warranted and declines to undertake the
conflict-of-law inquiry discussed in Mazza at this stage of the
litigation. Honda may renew its arguments under Mazza at the class
certification stage.

In light if the foregoing, Judge Gilliam grants Honda's motion to
dismiss as to all claims in the ACAC. The dismissal is with leave
to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed within 28 days of the
date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/a24jxd3b from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN HONDA: Stipulation on Class Cert Briefing Sched Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kathleen A. Cadena et al,
v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-04007-MWF-MAA
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered an order
granting joint stipulation regarding class certification briefing
schedule and amendment of complaint, as follows:

                     Event                    Deadline

-- AHM's Response to Amended            October 24, 2022
    Complaint

-- Plaintiffs' Class Certification      April 7, 2023
    Motion and Expert Reports
    in support thereof:

-- Honda's Class Certification          July 7, 2023
    Opposition and Expert Reports
    in support thereof:

-- Close of Discovery:                  September 29, 2023

-- Plaintiffs class certification       October 6, 2023
    reply and rebuttal expert
    reports (if any):

-- Hearing on Class                     November 27, 2023
    Certification:

-- Trial Expert Disclosures:            February 16, 2024

-- Dispositive Motion Deadline:         March 11, 2024

The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is the North American Honda
subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company, Ltd. It was founded in
1959.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CkvElc at no extra charge.[CC]

ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Bonilla Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SERGIO BONILLA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a
Virginia Corporation; ANCESTRY.COM INC., a Delaware Corporation;
ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20 C 7390 (N.D. Ill.),
Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

Mr. Bonilla learned that Defendants Ancestry.com Operations Inc.,
Ancestry.com Inc., and Ancestry.com LLC (collectively, "Ancestry")
maintain a searchable database for high-school yearbooks including
the one in which his image is contained. Upon learning this,
Bonilla sued Ancestry for violating the Illinois Right of Publicity
Act ("IRPA") and unjustly enriching itself by using his likeness to
solicit Ancestry's paid products and services without his consent.

Ancestry is a genealogy company that operates Ancestry.com, a
public website through which users can search for records in
different databases. One of the searchable databases is Ancestry's
"U.S., School Yearbooks, 1900-1999," referred to as the "Yearbook
Database." This database collects yearbook records, about 47
million individual records in total from Illinois schools and
universities. Ancestry offers a 14-day "free trial" to new
subscribers for its products and various subscription plans for
paying customers. It also sends promotional emails to users who
have signed up for a free account but not a paid subscription;
these promotional messages contain "hints" corresponding to
yearbook records Ancestry believes may be related to the potential
customer.

On June 27, 2019, Ancestry began hosting the 1995 Central High
School, from Omaha, Nebraska, yearbook with Bonilla's image, in its
Yearbook Database. Since then, any visitor to Ancestry.com can
search for the yearbook, download the record in full, view
information about Bonilla, and observe a picture of the original
document. Ancestry has also used the record to populate its
promotional emails to potential customers, though has not otherwise
displayed the yearbook information to its users.

Upon learning that his old yearbook was on Ancestry, Bonilla filed
a complaint on Dec. 14, 2020, against the Defendants, alleging a
violation of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act ("IRPA") (Count
I); a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act (Count II); intrusion upon seclusion (Count
III); and unjust enrichment (Count IV).

Ancestry moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim. The Court granted the motion for Counts II and III
and denied it for Counts I and IV. Ancestry was -- and still is --
subject to the Court's personal jurisdiction, and Bonilla alleged a
sufficiently concrete injury to confer standing. Ancestry's various
defenses to liability under the IPRA were also unavailing: Ancestry
was not immune from liability under the Communications Decency Act;
the Copyright Act did not preempt the cause of action; and
Bonilla's claim did not fall within one of the exemptions to the
IPRA. Therefore, Bonilla did state a claim for Count I. And because
Bonilla could proceed under his ICPA claim, his claim for unjust
enrichment also survived.

Shortly thereafter, Ancestry moved for summary judgment. Bonilla
opposed the motion, and later filed a motion to compel responses to
document requests and interrogatories. Ancestry, in turn, moved for
a protective order from discovery requests.

Ancestry submits that summary judgment is appropriate on the two
remaining counts -- an alleged violation of the Illinois Right of
Publicity Act (Count I), and unjust enrichment (Count IV) -- and
the discovery dispute is thereby mooted.

The Illinois Right of Publicity Act affords individuals the "right
to control and to choose whether and how to use an individual's
identity for commercial purposes" and prohibits the unauthorized
use of personal identity for any commercial purpose. A person or
entity that violates this guarantee may be liable for actual,
statutory, and punitive damages. To succeed on an IRPA claim, a
plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) an appropriation of his
identity, (2) without his written consent, (3) for commercial
purposes. Ancestry contends that, as a threshold matter, Bonilla's
IRPA claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

Judge Kendall opines that Bonilla filed his lawsuit over a year
later, so his IRPA claim is untimely. Bonilla had to bring his
lawsuit within one year of his yearbook's first publication. He did
not. On June 27, 2019, Ancestry began hosting the 1995 Central High
School Yearbook with Bonilla's image. Bonilla waited until Dec. 14,
2020, to file his complaint, over a year later and outside the
statute of limitations.

Moreover, equitable tolling does not apply where Ancestry neither
misled Bonilla nor prevented him from asserting his rights; and
Bonilla never filed his claim in the wrong forum thereby delaying
his federal lawsuit. Additionally, the record does not establish
"due diligence" on the part of Bonilla. Ancestry hosted the
yearbook record on a widely available, public, searchable database
that anyone could, through a free trial or subscription, make use
of. Therefore, Judge Kendall will not excuse his delay in filing a
claim.

Unjust enrichment is a common-law theory of recovery or restitution
that arises when the defendant is retaining a benefit to the
plaintiff's detriment, and this retention is unjust. If an
unjust-enrichment claim "rests on the same improper conduct alleged
in another claim, then the unjust enrichment claim will be tied to
this related claim -- and will stand or fall with the related
claim." The Court previously stated the fate of Bonilla's
unjust-enrichment claim was linked to that of his ICPA claim. The
same is true now. Because Bonilla's ICPA claim no longer stands,
his unjust-enrichment claim falls as well.

Given this ruling, Bonilla is not entitled to the four categories
of documents he seeks. The first two categories include (1) all the
"occasions on which Ancestry displayed Mr. Bonilla's name or
yearbook photograph" and (2) the "licensing agreement under which
Ancestry pays or receives royalties or fees." Bonilla concedes,
however, that these requests become moot if the Court adopts the
single-year limitations period based upon the first publication of
an image. The two remaining categories encompass (3) every Illinois
yearbook on Ancestry's database "on or after Dec. 14, 2019" and (4)
the "yearbook photographs from Illinois schools that Ancestry has
incorporated in promotional marketing ("hint") emails." Bonilla
made these requests to identify other plaintiffs with possible
claims against Ancestry, but it is not the defendant's job to help
a plaintiff or his attorneys recruit new clients.

For these reasons, Judge Kendall grants Ancestry's Motion for
Summary Judgment. She denies Bonilla's Motion to Compel Responses
to Document Requests and Interrogatories and Ancestry's Motion for
a Protective Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yvsntzcb from
Leagle.com.


ANNAPOLIS, MD: Johnson, et al., Seek Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA JOHNSON et al,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01120-CCB (D. Md.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class, adn
appoint them as class representatives and their attorneys as
attorneys for the class.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S7OYYp at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter A. Holland, Esq.
          Emanwel J. Turnbull, Esq.
          THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          914 Bay Ridge Rd. Ste 230
          Annapolis, MD 21403
          Telephone: (410) 280-6133
          Facsimile: (410) 280-8650
          E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com
                  eturnbull@hollandlawfirm.com

               - and -

          P. Joseph Donahue, Esq.
          18 West Street
          Annapolis, MD 21401
          Telephone: (410) 280-2023
          Facsimile: (410) 280-0905
          E-mail: pjd@thedonahuelawfirm.com

ANTHONY LOGISTICS: Arriaga, et al., Seek FLSA Conditional Cert
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS ARRIAGA, MILTON
JEREZ, and MEJIA ANDRES, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. ANTHONY LOGISTICS OF HUDSON COUNTY LLC, and
2SH SERVICES LLC d/b/a ANTHONY LOGISTICS OF HUDSON COUNTY LLC, and
SANTOS HERNANDEZ, individually, Case No. 2:22-cv-00495-JMV-LDW
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA) claim as a representative collective
      action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. approving Court-facilitated notice of the FLSA action to
      covered employees; including a consent form (or opt-in
      form) as authorized by the FLSA;

   3. approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
      consent form;

   4. producing names, last known mailing address, alternate
      address, telephone numbers and dates of employment of all
      covered employees; and

   5. Posting of the Notice, along with consent forms, in
      conspicuous locations at Anthony Logistics of Hudson
      County LLC and 2SH Services LLC.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 22, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UMVRQu at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

APPLE INC: Plaintiffs' Lawyers File Class Certification Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florian Mueller, writing for FOSS Patents, reports that the Pepper
v. Apple consumer class action over supracompetitive App Store
commissions, which was brought more than a decade ago, has already
been a trailblazer: the Supreme Court's affirmance of a Ninth
Circuit decision according to which consumers had standing to seek
antitrust damages from Apple over App Store commissions did not
resolve the merits of the case, but defibrillated it after Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers had dismissed it. And the fact that even a
Trump appointee -- Justice Brett Kavanaugh -- sided with liberal
judges on this issue clearly emboldened other plaintiffs. Then Epic
Games brought its case against Apple -- just yesterday I explained,
with half a dozen charts, why Epic should prevail on market
definition -- and eclipsed Pepper. But in the end that may even
have been a good thing for the consumer class action, as its
lawyers now get to optimize their strategy based on the outcome of
Epic's case (including the appeal).

Late on Sept. 26, the class action lawyers (from the firms of Wolf
Haldenstein, Kellogg Hansen, and Calcaterra Pollack) filed their
renewed motion for class certification with the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California:

Judge YGR had dismissed their previous motion without prejudice.
She wanted to see some improvements, but apparently didn't doubt
too strongly that certification would ultimately happen.

The part I wish to look at here discusses the plaintiffs' position
on what a competitive App Store commission rate would be (and would
have been all along). While the exact percentage is hidden, the
public redacted version of the document states that it "is similar
to the results reached by Dr. Economides" (the economic expert in a
developer class action that got settled). And the motion summarizes
Dr. Economides' findings as follows:

"Prof. Economides relied upon the same fundamental economic
relationship between app store profit margin, costs, and prices but
relied on different data and documents for the model's inputs to
conclude that the prevailing commission rate would have been
approximately 13.0 percent in a BFW [but-for world] where Apple
faces two rivals, and 14.8 percent in a BFW where Apple faces one
rival."

The consumer plaintiffs go on to claim that their own expert "used
(i) more conservative assumptions (a single-rival world rather than
the two-rival world analyzed by Prof. Economides), and (ii) better
data (including data from Apple's own survey expert, Prof. Itmar
Simonson, Ph.D.)."

Given that the developers' expert arrived 14.8% in a one-rival
scenario and that the consumers say their own number is similar, we
can assume they roughly believe a competitive rate would be 15%.

The consumer class will likely argue that the entire differential
between what Apple actually charged (which is practically 30% as
the 15% exception applies to many developers but only to a
minuscule percentage of total App Store revenues) and a
hypothetical rate of about 15%. Now, that's a simplistic way to
look at it:

First, it's not just about a headline rate but also about whether
in a competitive landscape there would be more loopholes. There are
app stores (such as Epic's) that offer their own in-app purchasing
(IAP) system to developers, but don't make it mandatory. And one
could easily imagine app stores that are more permissive when it
comes to, for instance, crypto transactions, which Apple taxes as
well. That could have further reduced the effective rate.

Second, there certainly were many developers who would have charged
end users the same: those developers would simply have been more
profitable. And there must have been even more developers who might
have priced their IAP offerings a bit lower, so consumers would
have saved money while the developers would have made more.

Consumers would arguably have had a greater benefit from developers
being able to invest more in their development efforts (as Apple
was and is profitable enough), but that's hard to quantify.

But for a very rough estimate, we can assume that the class action
lawyers want Apple to pay out tens of billions of dollars to their
proposed class, which they define as follows:

"All persons in the United States, exclusive of Apple and its
employees, agents and affiliates, and the Court and its employees,
who purchased one or more iOS applications or application licenses
from Defendant Apple Inc. ("Apple"), or who paid Apple for one or
more in-app purchases, including, but not limited to, any
subscription purchase, for use on an iOS Device at any time since
July 10, 2008 (the 'Class Period'). The Class is limited to those
persons who paid more than $10.00 in total to Apple during the
Class Period for iOS applications and in-app purchases from any one
Apple ID account;"

In June 2017, Apple announced that developers had earned more than
$70 billion on the App Store, which means Apple collected $30
billion in commissions. For the years 2017-2021, Statista provides
numbers that show an explosive growth in worldwide gross app
revenue on the App Store: approximately $300 billion during that
period, meaning Apple collected approximately $90 billion.

All those numbers are worldwide, and the class action is
U.S.-specific. But the U.S. is a huge market for Apple--the only
major market in which it is the market leader even by unit share.

Under the class action's theory, the global overcharge would have
amounted to approximately $60 billion (half of $120 billion, which
is the sume of the $30 billion inferred from Apple's 2017
announcement and the $90 billion calculated based on Statista's
2017-2021 numbers), and my guess is that the U.S. share of this is
a third or more.

This class action can get really costly, not only in a monetary
sense: it would be terrible for Apple if tens of millions of U.S.
iPhone users (there are more than 100 million of them, but only
those who spent at least $10 on the App Store with a single account
would get a payout) received letters notifying them of their
entitlement to a payout because of Apple having unlawfully
overcharged them.

There are consumer class actions in multiple jurisdictions over the
app tax enabled by the App Store monopoly. I mentioned some in a
recent post on a Mexican regulatory complaint. [GN]

APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Gaines FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL R. GAINES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-61755 (S.D. Fla., September 19, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay the
Plaintiff and similarly situated pest control technicians 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 Defendant as a pest control technician
from February 28, 2022, until June 22, 2022.

Aptive Environmental, LLC is a pest solutions provider based in
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

ARCHULETA COUNTY, CO: Faces Class Suit Over Wrongful Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Brown, writing for Durango Herald, reports that a former
Archuleta County employee has filed a lawsuit against the county
and the Board of County Commissioners saying she was wrongfully
terminated after reporting gender-based harassment in the
workplace.

According to a news release from Albrechta & Albrechta LLC, in late
2021, Archuleta County commissioners issued a $2,000 bonus to all
employees who worked during the COVID-19 pandemic to thank them for
their services. But commissioners decided to withhold the bonus
from employees who took any leave related to COVID-19.

Lacy Brown, a former supervisor with the county's Department of
Human Services, said she took 6½ hours leave when she was
exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19 and was subsequently denied the
bonus. Her attorneys say that is a violation of the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act and the CARES Act.

"These federal laws also protected employees who took any leave
related to COVID from retaliation," the release says. "Withholding
a bonus that was originally granted to all employees from only
those employees who used federally protected leave is a direct form
of retaliation for taking the leave."

Archuleta County Commissioner Ronnie Maez declined to comment for
this story.

When Brown learned she would not earn the bonus, she went to her
supervisor who directed her to the county commissioners because
they were responsible for the decision. When she did, she was told
the communication with elected officials and her boss was
inappropriate, according to the release.

The release said Brown was then subject to discriminatory
statements based on her gender.

According to the lawsuit, county Administrator Scott Wall was
overheard saying something to the effect that he would never meet
with Brown alone "because she had a bad reputation around town."
Wall also allegedly made an offensive comment about a "homosexual
man," according to the lawsuit.

Brown and the man told human resources they planned to file formal
complaints accusing Wall of creating a hostile work environment.
The next day, the county accepted Wall's voluntary resignation,
"which included a generous payout of his contract," according to
the lawsuit.

"Mr. Wall was never formally reprimanded and was allowed to resign
on his own terms and was paid to do so," the lawsuit says.

Efforts to reach Wall for comment on Sept. 27 were unsuccessful.

After reporting the harassment, Brown's attorneys allege the county
began an investigation against Brown, and she decided to
voluntarily resign as a result. The county allegedly refused to
accept Brown's resignation and instead terminated her employment.

"It is disappointing that the County I served for so long decided
to terminate me after I reported harassment and after I voluntarily
resigned," Brown said in the release. "It is even more upsetting
that all of this began simply because I challenged a decision by my
elected officials to withhold a bonus from me and others when the
County's policy forced me to take time off during the pandemic."

Brown is represented by Durango attorneys David and Eleni
Albrechta, as well as Tod Thompson with Albrechta & Coble located
in Ohio.

"Ms. Brown is standing up for her own rights after being terminated
for reporting harassment in the workplace," said David Albrechta,
in the release. "She is also leading the charge for any employee
who was denied the County-wide bonus simply because they were
forced to take leave pursuant to the County's own policies during a
global pandemic."

The lawsuit requests that Archuleta County compensate Brown for all
income and benefits incurred from Oct. 24, 2021, as well as
compensation for damage to her reputation and emotional
distress.[GN]

ARMSTRONG STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Systemic False Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaclyn Allen, writing for Denver7.com, reports that every time Mai
Samhouri looks at the empty field outside her Elizabeth home, she
is reminded of what is supposed to be there.

"This is where our future building is going to go," she said,
pointing to the unassembled building sitting nearby. "I can't
afford to erect that pile of steel because I spent all my money to
get it delivered."

Samhouri signed a contract for a building system with Armstrong
Steel in November 2020 and paid a $5,000 initial deposit.

"After I gave them my deposit, I felt like all customer service
completely was gone," she said, detailing months of delays and
price increases. "My faith in humanity is gone."

Her story sounds all too familiar to several Armstrong customers
who reached out to Contact Denver7 and joined the "Armstrong Steel
Buildings Victims Group" on Facebook.

"We started the Facebook group because we wanted other people to
know that they were not alone," said Tracy Toth, who is an
administrator of the group. "It's been very heartbreaking to hear
all of the stories from people in the group."

"We have exactly the same story as everybody else," said Kim Herb,
who contracted with Armstrong in October 2020. "Bait and switch,
lock in your steel price and steal your money. Bottom line."

Tyler Armantrout said Armstrong Steel increased the price of his
building 350% after he signed the contract, claiming steel prices
had increased.

Meanwhile, Tony and Charity Maddox said they faced delays and price
hikes with Armstrong Steel, so they decided to cut their losses and
go with another company, despite losing thousands of dollars in
deposit money.

"We were able to find another steel company out of Florida, so
we're actually getting the building for less than our original
building cost," said Tony Maddox. "It's kind of crazy when you look
at it and you see what Armstrong is doing. Everybody feels a little
shafted in the process."

Many former customers have joined a class action lawsuit that
alleges Armstrong Steel pressures people to sign contracts to "lock
in" prices, but after long delays, the company demands
significantly more money and then refuses to refund deposits when
customers balk. The complaint alleges there are more than 100 class
members, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.

"I knew we couldn't do it alone. They could pick us off one by
one," said Susan Whitehall, who helped initiate the legal action.
"So I figured the more people I got together [who] could go after
them together, the easier it would be."

According to the lawsuit, Armstrong Steel's founder, Ethan Chumley,
is a former employee of General Steel, a company that settled a
$4.5 million consumer protection case in 2007 brought by the
Colorado attorney general after a judge found deceptive sales and
marketing tactics.

Armstrong Steel refused multiple requests for interviews regarding
the lawsuit. When Contact Denver7 paid their Englewood office a
visit, a vice president said we were disrupting business and asked
us to leave.

In a statement, Sean Andrews, an Armstrong Steel spokesman, wrote:

"We have maintained an excellent reputation in the industry for 15
years. The sharp rise in material prices was out of our control
and, unfortunately, led to a number of customers feeling priced out
of their projects. Folks across all industries experienced rising
costs due to the effects of the COVID pandemic, rising inflation,
material scarcity and other supply chain issues.

Initial engineering payments cover design consultation with a
project manager, drafting, detailing, engineering, drawings,
blueprints and other preliminary work, all of which must take place
before materials can be ordered.

We remain willing to work with customers who no longer wish to
proceed due to budget constraints. We have not required anyone to
pay for a building they could no longer afford. In appropriate
circumstances, we have provided refunds even though work was
already performed and significant expenses were incurred.

Prices, while much higher today, are relatively stable and the
folks currently engaging us are not seeing any material increases
or out of the ordinary delays."

Former customers, however, said that is no help for them, as they
try to figure out the best course of action.

"I have a $60,000 pile of steel over there," said Samhouri.

Samhouri's building system was finally delivered, but she had to
save more money to put it up because of the price hikes and
delays.

"I'm not a complainer I'm not a money seeker. We're going to get
there. It's going to take us longer," she said. [GN]

AT&T MOBILITY: Class Settlement in Razo Gets Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS M. SALAS RAZO, on his
own behalf of and all others similarly situated, v. AT&T MOBILITY
SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
granting the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class
settlement:

   1. The Plaintiff's request for conditional certification of
      the Settlement Class is granted, with the class is defined
      as follows:

      "All persons who either or both:

      (1) worked for AT&T Mobility Services LLC in the State of
          California, while classified as non-exempt, at any
          time from November 2, 2021, to the date the Court
          grants preliminary approval of this Settlement; and/or

      (2) filed a timely Request for Exclusion from the class
          action settlement in the matter of Samuel Wallack, et.
          al. v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, Case No.
          CIVSB2117915, pending in the Superior Court for the
          State of California, County of California County of
          San Bernardino.

   2. Preliminary approval of the parties’ proposed settlement
      agreement is granted.

   3. The proposed PAGA award from the Gross Settlement Amount,
      including a payment of $7,500 to the LWDA, is approved.

   4. The proposed notice plan is approved.

   5. Luis Salas Razo is appointed the Class Representative for
      the Settlement Class.

   6. The firm of Bradley/Grombacher LLP is appointed Class
       Counsel.

   7. Atticus Administration, LLC, is appointed as the
      Settlement Administrator, with responsibilities pursuant
      to the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

   8. The Class Representative enhancement request for Plaintiff
      is granted preliminarily up to the amount of $10,000.00,
      subject to a petition and review at the Final Approval and
      Fairness Hearing.

   9. Class Counsel's request for fees not to exceed 33 1/3% of
      the gross settlement amount and costs up to $10,000 is
      granted preliminarily, subject to counsel’s petition for
      fees and review at the Final Approval and Fairness
      Hearing. Class Members and their counsel may support or
      oppose this request, if they so desire, at the final
      approval and fairness hearing.

  10. The petition for attorneys' fees and for class
      representative enhancement fee shall be filed no later
      than October 24, 2022.

  11. Costs of settlement administration shall not exceed
      $30,000.

  12. The Settlement Administrator shall mail the approved Class
      Notice Packet no later than October 26, 2022.

Luis Salas Razo asserts AT&T Mobility Services failed to comply
with California’s wage and hour laws by failing to pay all wages
due and provide proper meal and rest breaks. Razo now seeks
preliminary approval of a settlement reached in this action.

Razo was employed a sales representative at the AT&T Mobility Store
located in Madera, California. Razo asserts he worked for AT&T "for
approximately eleven years" until his termination in June 2018.

He alleges AT&T "routinely failed to properly calculate the
overtime and double time rate of pay." Razo asserts AT&T "failed to
include its employees' total compensation including bonuses and
commissions when calculating the regular rate for the purposes of
determining overtime wages owed and thus routinely underpaid
employees for overtime wages owed."

Razo contends this underpayment was "evidenced in his paycheck and
accompanying wage statement issued June 13, 2018."

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E2noaI at no extra charge.[CC]

AUDIOPHILE MUSIC: Molinari Sues  Over Deceptive Record Album Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS MOLINARI, Plaintiff v. AUDIOPHILE MUSIC DIRECT, INC.; MOBILE
FIDELITY SOUND LAB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05444 (N.D.
Cal., Sept. 23, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, against the Defendants
for breach of express warranty, breach of contract, fraud,
violations of unfair competition/consumer protection laws, and
unjust enrichment.

This proposed class action is on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
consumers who, during the period from four years prior to the
commencement of this action to July 14, 2022, purchased a vinyl
record album made by Mobile Fidelity that was advertised by
Defendants as an ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING. The Defendants'
advertising was false and deceptive because the albums were not
made directly from the original master recording. Instead, Mobile
Fidelity converted the original master analog (studio) recordings
to digital files and then used the digital files to make the
albums, says the suit.

Audiophile Music Direct Inc. was founded in 1993. The company's
line of business includes the retail sale of products by
television, catalog, and mail-order.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Arnold C. Wang, Esq.
          M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844-9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861-0168

               - and -

          Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
          Daniel B. Lifschitz, Esq.
          JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
          439 N Canon Dr, Ste 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210-3908
          Telephone: (310) 975-1080
          Facsimile: (310) 975-1095

AWP INC: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Kasiotis Suit Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACK KASIOTIS, ET AL., Plaintiff v. AWP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19CV648 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Christopher A.
Boyko of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, grants in part and denies in part AWP's Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings.

The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is brought on behalf of
traffic control specialists employed by the Defendant. According to
the Plaintiffs, the Defendant failed to pay them for all hours
worked, resulting in unpaid earned wages, including overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 hours each
workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29
U.S.C. Sections 201-219.

The Plaintiffs also assert a class action claim for unpaid wages in
violation of New York wage and hour laws, in particular 12 NYCRR
Section 142-2.1 et seq. ("New York Wage Law") pursuant to NY CLS
Labor Section 198; violations of the Indiana Wage Payment Statute.
I.C. 22-2-5 et seq. ("IWPS"); and violations of Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act of 1968, 43 P.S. Sections 333.101, et seq.

The Plaintiffs contend the Defendant provides temporary work zone
traffic control and flagging throughout the United States. They
were employed as traffic control specialists and were paid at an
hourly rate. They performed various duties, including standing and
controlling traffic through temporary work zones, as well as
transporting equipment, tools, and other traffic control
specialists to the Defendant's worksites.

In particular, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendant requires many of
these traffic control specialists, which describe as
"flagger-drivers" to transport other traffic control specialists,
called flagger-passengers by the Plaintiffs, to and from worksites
in company-owned pickup trucks. Consequently, these flagger-drivers
begin and end their workdays at either a Defendant work location or
their own homes. However, the Defendant only paid them from the
time they arrived at the worksite to the time they left the
worksite. Therefore, according to Plaintiffs, they were not paid
for all hours worked.

The Defendant specifically designated flagger-passengers that the
flagger-drivers were to pick up and drive home. The time spent by
flagger-drivers picking up and dropping off flagger -- passengers
is not compensated. Moreover, the Plaintiffs contend they were not
paid for transporting tools and equipment to and from the worksite;
refueling Defendant-owned trucks and inspecting and maintaining the
Defendant-owned trucks pre and post work.

According to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by
the Portal to Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 254 ("PPA"), which
excepts from compensability commuting to and from work, acts
incidental to use of an employer's vehicle for commuting and other
pre and post work activities that are not integral or indispensable
to the work Plaintiffs were hired to perform.

Count One of the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleges
overtime pay violations under the FLSA. In response to the
explosion of FLSA-related litigation, Congress enacted the Portal
to Portal Act 29 U.S.C. Section 251(b). The PPA expressly exempted
from compensation travel time to and from work. Section (a)(2)
further restricted other pre and post work activities as
non-compensable.

Subsequently, the Defendant argues that Congress passed the
Employee Commuting Flexibility Act ("ECFA"), 29 U.S.C. Section
254(a), in 1996, which clarified that home to work travel in a
company car and any activities incidental to an employee's use of a
company vehicle for commuting are non-compensable. The ECFA did
acknowledge that routine vehicle safety inspections and other minor
tasks such as fueling the vehicle meet the definition of
incidental.

The United States Supreme Court in Integrity Staffing Solutions,
Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (2014) further clarified what is integral
and indispensable compensable work under the FLSA in response to
lower court cases holding that it was work required by and
beneficial to the employer. It rejected this interpretation,
holding instead that integral and indispensable must be tied to the
productive work an employee was hired to perform. Because
commuting, carrying equipment and tools and inspecting and fueling
company-provided vehicles are not integral and indispensable to a
flagger-drivers principal activity of traffic control, the
Defendant argues these incidental tasks are non-compensable under
the FLSA and it is entitled to judgment.

The Defendant contends its arguments are amenable to resolution on
a motion for judgment on the pleadings as there is no factual
dispute on the nature of the work performed. Instead, the arguments
presume the facts as alleged are true, but regardless, they are
non-compensable as a matter of law. As none of the Plaintiffs'
alleged compensable job duties are integral and indispensable to
their principal activities, the Defendant asserts they are barred
by the PPA and ECFA and the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
must be dismissed.

The Defendant further argues that the Plaintiffs' state law claims
fails as a matter of law as well because New York, Pennsylvania and
Indiana state wage laws are identical to the FLSA and therefore,
for the same reasons the Plaintiffs' FLSA claim fails their state
law claims fail as well. Moreover, the Defendant asserts that the
Indiana state statute the Plaintiffs bring their state law claim
under only permits recovery for late payment of wages, not
non-payment of wages.

Finally, the Defendant moves for judgment on Plaintiff Mary Ware's
Pennsylvania state law claim for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because her employment is governed by a collective
bargaining agreement and her claim is preempted by Section 301 of
the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Her claim further fails
because the CBA expressly requires the Plaintiffs grieve any
disputes over wages under the FLSA or any state wage statute.

According to the Plaintiffs, their Second Amended Complaint
satisfies the federal pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ P. 8 in that
it provides "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief." Moreover, it satisfies the
Twombly/Iqbal standard of plausibility.

In Integrity Staffing, the United States Supreme Court defined
"integral" to mean, "belonging to or making up an integral whole;
constituent, component; specifically necessary to the completeness
or integrity of the whole; forming an intrinsic portion or element
as the distinguished from an adjunct or appendage." It further
defined "indispensable" as a duty "that cannot be disposed with,
remitted, set aside, disregarded, or neglected."

Contrary to the Defendant's assertion, the Plaintiffs argue they do
not seek compensation for mere commuting to and from work. Rather,
they are flagger-drivers and shuttling other employees to and from
job sites was a principal activity of their job, as was the
transportation of equipment. Any disputes over the nature of their
duties is not ripe for determination on a motion for judgment on
the pleadings. Instead, the Plaintiffs argue that the Court must
accept as true their factual allegations and resolve these factual
disputes on summary judgment as questions about the scope of a
Plaintiffs' job duties are appropriately resolved only after
discovery.

Because shuttling workers and equipment to and from job sites is an
integral and indispensable part of the Plaintiffs' principal
activities, all work performed from commencement of the shuttling
services to the conclusion of the same are compensable under the
FLSA, according to the Plaintiffs.

Regarding the Plaintiffs' state law claims, the Plaintiffs assert
judgment is not warranted because New York law incorporates the
PPA, therefore, for the same reasons that the Defendant's arguments
fail on the FLSA, its arguments under New York law fail as well.
Furthermore, Pennsylvania law does not incorporate the PPA and
therefore affords broader protection and thus militates against
dismissal. In addition, Plaintiff Anglin has sufficiently stated a
failure to pay under Indiana law and Defendant misstates the
relevant law.

Finally, Plaintiff Ware's state claim need not be interpreted
through a CBA as the relevant CBA merely requires that overtime pay
rules are to be governed by applicable federal law and Ware was not
required to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing suit.

Based on the allegations in the SAC, the relevant statues,
legislative history and caselaw, and consistent with the Court's
prior decision in Luster, Judge Boyko grants dismissal of the
Plaintiff's FLSA claim. He opines that there does not appear to be
any serious dispute that mere commute time to and from the
flagger-passengers pick up site is not compensable. At issue is the
time spent by flagger-drivers from a flagger-passenger pick up site
to a designated worksite and the time spent driving from the
worksite to the flagger-passengers drop off site.

Clearly, the SAC does not allege that flagger-drivers had to
commute outside AWP's normal commute area, rather, the SAC alleges
picking up flagger-passengers took the Plaintiffs outside their own
normal commute area. In addition, the SAC is devoid of any
allegation that work vehicles were not subject to an agreement.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show
their picking up and dropping off other employees was compensable.

Judge Boyko also agrees with the Defendant that pre and post-trip
vehicle inspections and the transportation of tools are not
compensable as these are incidental to the Plaintiffs' principal
activities under the ECFA. Neither is the time spent fueling a
vehicle compensable under the ECFA, and its legislative history as
it is incidental to the commute.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Boyko grants in part
the Defendant's Motion and dismisses the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims.
He declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' state law claims and they are dismissed without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/256f7ffh from Leagle.com.


BACKSTREETS GRILL: Wolff Suit Stayed Pending Class Cert Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolff, et. al, v.
Backstreets Grill SC, LLC et. al, Case No. 3:21-cv-02800 (D.S.C.),
the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an order staying pending
ruling on Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Equal Pay Act.[CC]

BANK OF AMERICA: Allen Alleges Unlawful Voice Print Recording
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEAH ALLEN, RYAN CHILDERS, and JENNIFER MEZA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01368-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., Sept.
10, 2022) alleges that the Defendant disregards Plaintiffs and
other California residents' statutorily protected privacy rights
and unlawfully examines or records their voices in violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Defendant utilizes a system that enables it to examine the
voice of anyone that calls it to determine the truth or falsity of
the callers' statements. The software combines audio, voice, and
artificial intelligence technologies to compare the callers' voices
to a comprehensive database of recordings and metrics.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated (and
continues to violate) CIPA because it uses a system which examines
or records California residents' "voice prints or voice stress
patterns . . . to determine the truth or falsity of statements"
without their express written consent.

Bank of America, N.A., is a federally chartered bank with its
principal place of business located outside of California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (866) 219-3343
          E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429    
          E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Mohamed Appeals Case Dismissal to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
YAGOUB M. MOHAMED is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled Yagoub Mohamed, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01283-CCB, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a putative class of
Maryland residents who were issued Bank of America prepaid debit
cards for unemployment benefits, brought this class action suit
against the Defendant for alleged violation of the federal
Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and state privacy and consumer
protection laws, common-law breach of contract, and negligence.
Mohamed was eligible for unemployment benefits during the COVID-19
pandemic, but he lost access to nearly $15,000 in those benefits
when an unauthorized user fraudulently used the Bank of America
prepaid debit card that was meant to deliver his funds.

On August 2, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint, which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge Catherine C. Blake. The Court ruled that the claim
under EFTA must be dismissed because pandemic unemployment
assistance (PUA) payments are excluded from the definition of
prepaid account, therefor falling outside EFTA's definition of
covered accounts. The Court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and ordered to
dismiss without prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Yagoub Mohamed v. Bank of
America N.A., Case No. 22-1954, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 12, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant YAGOUB M. MOHAMED, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
            Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
            CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
            763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
            Newport News, VA 23601
            Telephone: (757) 930-3660

                   - and -

            Tara Boen Keller, Esq.
            CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
            1800 Diagonal Road
            Alexandria, VA 22314
            Telephone: (703) 273-7770

                   - and -

            Robert William Murphy
            LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY, ESQ.
            440 Premier Circle
            Charlottesville, VA 22901
            Telephone: (434) 328-3100

Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. is represented by:

            Yvonne W. Chan, Esq.
            JONES DAY
            100 High Street
            Boston, MA 02100
            Telephone: (617) 960-3939

                   - and -

            Thomas Michael Hefferon, Esq.
            James W. McGarry, Esq.
            GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
            1900 N. Street, NW
            Washington, DC 20036
            Telephone: (617) 570-1000

BARTU LLC: Dinc Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Hair Salon Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
DILEK DINC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BARTU LLC d/b/a HAIRCO ASTORIA and BAHADIR
TEKIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05610-HG (E.D.N.Y., September
20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, retaliation, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, and
failure to provide wage notices and wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cosmetologist and
general assistant from approximately October 1, 2020 until
approximately October 21, 2021.

Bartu LLC, doing business as HairCo Astoria, is a hair salon
business located at 29-17 Ditmars Blvd., Queens, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Robert D. Salaman, Esq.
         AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
         45 Broadway, Suite 1420
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 825-1400
         E-mail: rob@akinlaws.com

BAYER HEALTHCARE: Trotter Sues Over Defective and Toxic Collars
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rhoda Trotter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bayer Healthcare LLC; Bayer Corporation; and, Elanco
Animal Health, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-02183-CEH-MRM (M.D. Fla.,
Sept. 21, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for the
Defendant's failure to inform the Plaintiff about the defect
inherent in the Seresto flea and tick collars even though the
Defendants knew about the defect at the time of purchase.

Seresto flea and tick collars--some of the top-selling flea and
tick preventative collars in the country--have been associated with
tens of thousands of pet injuries and approximately 1,700 pet
deaths. The Defendant hid that information from, and patently
misled, consumers. Indeed, even after reports of Seresto's serious
side effects became public, Defendants have downplayed the reports
and continued to represent that Seresto is safe for pets to use
when it is not.

The danger of Seresto flea and tick collars is so severe that it
instigated a Congressional investigation by the House Committee on
Oversight and Reform's Subcomittee on Economic and Consumer Policy.
After an in-depth, 16-month investigation that involved review of
internal documents of the Defendants, which were not been made
available to the public, the House Committee on Oversight and
Reform's Subcomittee on Economic and Consumer Policy issued a
report in June of 2022 ("Seresto Report") recommending a recall of
the Seresto flea and tick collar due to the dangers it posed to
pets and humans.

At no point have the Defendants disclosed this information to
United States consumers. To the contrary, they have maintained and
represented that Seresto collars are safe for pets to use. Despite
the Defendants' claims, Seresto collars have resulted in millions
of dollars in damages for pet owners--both in the form of collars
that they overpaid for or would have never purchased had consumers
known of Seresto's dangers, and also in veterinarian and other
medical expenses incurred by pet owners with pets injured by the
Seresto collar and its pesticides.

The Defendants, of course, have not warned consumers because
Seresto pet collars accounted for more than $300 million in revenue
in 2019 alone. Seresto pet collars are an enormous business
segment, and consequently, the Defendants have refused to make the
product safer or warn consumers about the potential risks. While
the Defendants sell Seresto collars as "veterinary medicine," that
is a misnomer. The over-the-counter collars do not constitute
"medicine" but rather, are toxic pesticides that can harm--and even
kill—pets.

Had the Defendants disclosed the existence of the serious safety
risks associated with Seresto Collars and made the Plaintiff aware
of such risks, the Plaintiff would not have used the Seresto Collar
on her dog, Taz, Taz would never have suffered the injuries he
developed as a result of using the Seresto Collar. Additionally,
the Plaintiff would never have incurred the out-of-pocket medical
expenses for her dog's treatment for injuries arising from use of
the Seresto Collar. Both the Plaintiff and her dog were harmed as a
result of the purchase and use of the Seresto Collar, which could
have been prevented had Defendants disclosed the existence of the
serious safety risks associated with the Seresto Collars, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a Seresto Collar and used it on her dog.

Bayer Healthcare LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey and initially developed the
Seresto pet collar and manufactured, advertised, labeled, and sold
Seresto from 2013 until August 2020.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          3833 Central Ave.
          St. Petersburg, FL 33713
          Phone: (865) 247-0080
          Fax: (865) 522-0049
          Email: rsoffin@milberg.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Phone: (212) 64-0500
          Fax: (212) 253-4272

               - and -

          Michael Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: (816) 945-7110
          Fax: (816) 945-7118
          Email: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com


BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: 3rd Cir. Reverses $3.7M Fee Award to Law Firms
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that citing its
"special responsibility" to scrutinize plaintiff fees in class
action litigation, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
$3.7 million fee awarded to three law firms in a lawsuit over
allegedly defective BMW engines because they didn't provide
detailed enough billing records.

As part of a settlement estimated to be worth as much as $27
million, BMW agreed not to challenge a fee award up to $1.7 million
to lawyers at Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, Thomas P. Sobran
P.C. and Nagel Rice. The plaintiff lawyers, in turn, agreed not to
seek more than $3.7 million.

The lawyers then submitted billing records listing the hours worked
over three years by lawyers and paralegals at each of the firms.
Partner Gary Greifman worked 376 hours at $895 an hour worth
$337,000, for example, while Thomas Sobran sought $667,000 for 890
hours at $750 an hour. A magistrate judge said the records were
"more than sufficient" and recommended a "lodestar" amount of $1.9
million multiplied by 1.9 to reflect the risk of the case for a
total of $3.7 million -- precisely the upper end of what the
plaintiff lawyers said they would submit.

BMW appealed, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a Sept. 9
decision, reversed the fee award.

The plaintiff lawyers argued BMW lost its right to challenge the
fees because after the trial judge asked if there was anything to
add to the record a defense lawyer said, "We put it in the hands of
the court, and you've made your decision, judge." They also argued
BMW effectively had waived its right to challenge the fees anyway,
because they fell within the ranges in the agreement.

The Third Circuit disagreed, saying BMW didn't expressly waive its
rights under the contract as required in class actions. It also
said that the "unique relationship among plaintiffs' counsel,
plaintiffs, and defendants in class actions imposes a special
responsibility to hear challenges to fee awards."

Critics of the class-action system, and a growing number of judges,
say the process gives an incentive for plaintiff lawyers to collude
with the defense to settle cases in a way that awards them large
fees without regard to how much money class members actually
obtain. In this case, for example, the lower court estimated the
value of the BMW settlement at $27 million without knowing how many
consumers would be eligible to make claims or how much would be
paid out.

The Third Circuit focused its analysis on the billing records,
which listed hours worked and a suggested hourly rate. They
"provided no dates to inform the District Court of when the task
was performed; nor information to show what any specific activity
was, how much time was devoted to any specific activity, on any
specific date, by which specific individual, for a particular
charge."

"We simply cannot discern from the charts whether certain hours are
duplicative (a determination that is particularly crucial here,
given that three plaintiffs' firms seek fees for performing the
same categories of work) or whether the total hours billed were
reasonable for the work performed," the court concluded.

The Third Circuit also urged the lower court to reconsider awarding
plaintiff lawyers a multiple of the lodestar hours they reported
having worked, saying it wasn't enough merely to find that the
multiple was in line with other awards in the judicial
district.[GN]

BETSY JIVIDEN: Rose Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Betsy Jividen, et al.
The case is styled as Michael D. Rose, Edward L. Harmon, on their
own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Betsy
Jividen, individually and in her official capacity as the
Commission of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; Michael Francis, Larry Warden, individually as
employees of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; The Raleigh County Commission; John/Jane Doe
Employees of The Raleigh County Commission; The Fayette County
Commission; John/Jane Doe Employees of The Fayette County
Commission; The Greenbrier County Commission; John/Jane Doe
Employees of The Greenbrier County Commission; The Mercer County
Commission; John/Jane Doe Employees of The Mercer County
Commission; The Monroe County Commission; John/Jane Doe Employees
of The Monroe County Commission; The Summers County Commission;
John/Jane Doe Employees of The Summers County Commission; The
Wyoming County Commission; John/Jane Doe Employees of The Wyoming
County Commission; PrimeCare Medical of West Virginia, Inc.;
John/Jane Doe PrimeCare Employees and; John/Jane Doe Correctional
Officers, Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va., Sept. 21, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner (Prison Condition) for
Prisoner Civil Rights.

Betsy Jividen -- https://dcr.wv.gov/ -- is the Commissioner of the
Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Dunlap, Esq.
          ROBERT P. DUNLAP ESQUIRE
          208 Main Street, Suite A
          Beckley, WV 25801
          Phone: (304) 255-4762
          Fax: (304) 255-4760
          Email: RobertDunlapEsq@aol.com

               - and -

          Russell A. Williams, Esq.
          NEW TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES
          430 Harper Park Drive
          Beckley, WV 25801
          Phone: (304) 250-6017
          Fax: (304) 250-6012
          Email: russell@newlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Stephen P. New, Esq.
          P. O. Box 5516
          Beckley, WV 25801
          Phone: (304) 250-6017
          Fax: (304) 250-6012
          Email: steve@newlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Timothy P. Lupardus, Esq.
          LUPARDUS LAW OFFICE
          P. O. Box 1680
          Pineville, WV 24874-1680
          Phone: (304) 732-0250
          Fax: (304) 732-0252
          Email: office@luparduslaw.com

               - and -

          Zachary Kyle Whitten, Esq.
          PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN BROWN & POE
          252 George Street
          Beckley, WV 25801
          Phone: (304) 673-9090
          Email: zwhitten@pffwv.com


BICKFORD OF TINLEY: Cooper BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ASIA COOPER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BICKFORD OF TINLEY PARK, LLC, Case No.
2022-CH-07257, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on September 19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-05091 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged collection, storage
and usage of biometric identifiers without prior consent in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and
unpaid wages pursuant to the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act.

Bickford of Tinley Park, LLC is an assisted living facility in
Tinley Park, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Orly Henry, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 372-5520
         E-mail: ohenry@littler.com

                 - and -

         Jeffrey D. Hanslick, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         1201 Walnut Street, Suite 1450
         Kansas City, MO 64106
         Telephone: (816) 627-4400
         E-mail: jhanslick@littler.com

BIMBO BAKERIES: Juarez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LUIS JUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.; BIMBO
BAKEHOUSE LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 22CV-02604, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, Merced County, to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California on Sept. 23, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:22-at-00731 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges the following class and
representative claims based on alleged violations of the California
Labor Code: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay
overtime wages; (3) meal period liability; (4) rest break
liability; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized employee wage
statements; (6) failure to pay all wages owed timely and upon
separation of employment; (7) failure to reimburse for business
expenses; (8) violation of the Labor Code Section 1174(d); (9)
failure to maintain temperature providing reasonable comfort; (10)
violation of the Business & Professions Code; and (11) penalties
pursuant to the Labor Code.

Bimbo Bakeries USA is the American corporate north-of-the-border
arm of the Mexican multinational bakery product manufacturing
company Grupo Bimbo.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kathy H. Gao, Esq.
          Tuyet T. Nguyen Lu, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501           
          E-mail: kathy.gao@morganlewis.com
                  tuyet.nguyen@morganlewis.com

BKP INC: Miles Wins Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA MILES a/k/a Elisa
Marie Miles, and those similarly situated, v. BKP INC., ELLA BLISS
BEAUTY BAR LLC, BLISS BEAUTY BAR -- 2, LLC, ELLA BLISS BEAUTY BAR
-- 3, LLC, BROOKE VANHAVERMAAT, KELLY HUELSING, and PETER
KOCLANES,Case No. 1:18-cv-01212-PAB-MEH (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Philip A. Brimmer entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion
for class certification Under Rule 23(b)(3) and appointing Class
Counsel Under Rule 23(g).

The Court further order that the following classes are certified:

   1. The Minimum Wage act Downtime Class

      "All current and former service technicians who worked for
      the entity defendants (BKP Inc., Ella Bliss Beauty Bar
      LLC, Ella Bliss Beauty Bar – 2, LLC, and Ella Bliss Beauty

      Bar -- 3, LLC) at any of Ella Bliss Beauty Bar's three
      locations from six years prior to the filing of this case
      until the present;"

   2. The Wage Claim Act Downtime Class

      "All current and former service technicians who worked for
      the entity defendants (BKP Inc., Ella Bliss Beauty Bar
      LLC, Ella Bliss Beauty Bar -- 2, LLC, and Ella Bliss
      Beauty Bar -- 3, LLC) at any of Ella Bliss Beauty Bar's
      three locations from three years prior to the filing of
      this case until the present;"

   3. The Commission and Tip Theft Class

      "All current and former service technicians who worked for
      the entity defendants (BKP Inc., Ella Bliss Beauty Bar
      LLC, Ella Bliss Beauty Bar -- 2, LLC, and Ella Bliss
      Beauty Bar -- 3, LLC) at any of Ella Bliss Beauty Bar's
      three locations from three years prior to the filing of
      this case until the present."

The Court also ordered that Towards Justice and Killmer, Lane &
Newman LLP are appointed class counsel amd plaintiffs Lisa Miles
a/k/a Elisa Marie Miles is appointed class representative.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xXrTj1 at no extra charge.[CC]

BLUE DIAMOND: Cummings Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Willie Cummings,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Blue Diamond Growers, Case No. 1:22-cv-00141-AW-HTC (N.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. Certifying all persons who purchased Smokehouse Almonds
      sold by Blue Diamond Growers in Florida and the Consumer
      Fraud Multi-State Class between June 2016 through the
      present, excluding the judge or magistrate assigned to
      this case; Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has a
      controlling interest; Defendant's officers, directors,
      legal representatives, successors, and assigns; and
      persons who purchased the Product for the purpose of
      resale;

   2. Appointing Willie Cummings as representative of the Class;
      and

   3. Appointing Sheehan & Associates, P.C. and The Wright Law
      Office, P.A., as Class Counsel.

Blue Diamond is an agricultural cooperative and marketing
organization that specializes in California almonds.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 22,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UNpyB5
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          William Wright, Esq.
          THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
          515 N Flagler Dr Ste P-300
          West Palm Beach FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 514-0904
          E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

BOEING EMPLOYEES: Order Setting Pretrial Sched Entered in Arant
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT ARANT, an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BOEING EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:22-cv-00938-RSL-SKV
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge S. Kate Vaughan entered an order
setting pretrial schedule as follows:

                        Event                      Date

  -- Deadline for joining parties:             Oct. 20, 2022

  -- Deadline for amending pleadings           Nov. 17, 2022

  -- Motion for class certification            Feb. 10, 2023
     due and noted on the Court's
     calendar for the fifth Friday
     thereafter:

  -- Disclosure of expert testimony            March 29, 2023
     under FRCP 26(a)(2) due:

  -- Disclosure of rebuttal expert             April 18, 2023
     testimony under FRCP 26(a)(2)
     due:

  -- All motions related to discovery          May 17, 2023
     must be filed by this date and
     noted for consideration no
     later than the third Friday
     thereafter:

  -- Discovery to be completed by:             June 16, 2023

  -- All dispositive motions must be           July 17, 2023
     filed by this date and noted
     for consideration no later
     than the fourth Friday:

BECU is a credit union originally established to serve employees of
The Boeing Company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BUdSE2 at no extra charge.[CC]



BOOKS-A-MILLION INC: Lam VPPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEREMY LAM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BOOKS-A-MILLION, INC. and
BOOKSAMILLION.COM, INC., Case No. 2022-CA-007867-O, was removed
from the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for
Orange County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on September 20, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 6:22-cv-01717 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Video Privacy Protection Act.

Books-A-Million, Inc. is a book retailer, headquartered in
Birmingham, Alabama.

Booksamillion.com, Inc. is a bookstore chain in the U.S.,
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Aldo M. Leiva, Esq.
         Desislava K. Docheva, Esq.
         Zachary B. Busey, Esq.
         BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
         100 S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 1620
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
         Telephone: (954) 768-1600
         E-mail: aleiva@bakerdonelson.com
                 ddocheva@bakerdonelson.com
                 zbusey@bakerdonelson.com

BOOT BARN: Denies to Convert Gift Card Balance to Cash, Harvey Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE HARVEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOOT BARN, INC., and DOES 1 through 20,
Defendant, Case No. 22CV02127 (Cal. Super., Imperial Cty.,
September 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law, and False Advertising Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of failing to provide
cash to consumers wishing to redeem a gift card with a cash value
less than $10, or alternatively. According to the complaint, the
Defendant profits every time a gift card holder (1) fails to redeem
a Boot Barn gift card for the Defendant's items (either because the
gift card holder does not want to purchase any additional items or
when the balance remaining on the gift card is too low to purchase
an item from the Defendant), and (2) when a Boot Barn employee
refuses a gift card holder's request for the cash balance of a gift
card.

Boot Barn, Inc. is a company that sells western and work-related
footwear, apparel, and accessories based in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
         Neil B. Fineman, Esq.
         FINEMAN POLINER LLP
         155 North Riverview Drive
         Anaheim Hills, CA 92808-1225
         Telephone: (714) 620-1125
         Facsimile: (714) 701-0155
         E-mail: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com
                 Neil@FinemanPoliner.com

BRGR STOP: Spechler Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Spechler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BRGR STOP FT. LAUDERDALE, LLC, Case No. CACE-22-014414
(Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Sept. 26, 2022), is
brought seeking to secure redress for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and under the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act as a result of the Defendant engagement in
aggressive telephonic sales calls.

To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
aggressive telephonic sales calls to consumers without having
secured prior express written consent as required under the FTSA,
and with no regards to consumers' rights under the TCPA. The
Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused the Plaintiff and
the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory
rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
their privacy. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an
injunction and statutory damages on behalf of himself and the Class
members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party" that received
of the Defendant's telephonic sales calls.

The Defendant is a restaurant that offers food and beverages to
consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: 305-479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                 gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: 305-975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                 chris@edelsberglaw.com


BROADCAST MUSIC: Baker Appeals Claim Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER C. BAKER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their first claim in the lawsuit entitled Alexander C.
Baker, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Broadcast Music Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01599-LLS, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiffs Alexander C. Baker, and Adam Bravery LLC, bring this
action on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated
songwriters, and on behalf of itself and all other
similarly-situated Royalty Assignees of Songwriters, respectively,
seeking declaratory judgment that (1) the Mandatory Arbitration
Clause of Defendants American Society of Composers, Authors and
Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI)is void and
unenforceable for economic duress; (2) ASCAP & BMI and their
officials are state actors; (3) ASCAP & BMI Arbitration Clause
violates First and Seventh  Amendment without due process; (4)
performance royalties are a federally protected right; and (5)
ASCAP & BMI owe songwriters a fiduciary duty. The Plaintiffs also
allege breach of fiduciary duty and non-class tort claims.

On July 15, 2022, BMI filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
first claim, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Louis L. Stanton on August 26, 2022. The Court ruled that the
first claim, for unenforceability of the Arbitration Clause, does
not state a claim upon which relief can be granted as pleaded.

The appellate case is captioned as Baker v. Broadcast Music
Incorporated, Case No. 22-1997, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 13, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ALEXANDER C. BAKER, et al., individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated songwriters, and ADAM
BRAVERY LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
Royalty Assignees of Songwriters, appear pro se.

Defendant-Appellee BROADCAST MUSIC INCORPORATED is represented by:

            Atara Miller, Esq.
            MILBANK LLP
            55 Hudson Yards
            New York, NY 10001
            Telephone: (212) 530-5000

BROOKLYN SUYA CORP: Gaskin Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Brooklyn Suya Corp. The case
is styled as Lamarr Gaskin, Emperess McDowell, on behalf of
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals v. Brooklyn Suya
Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-05648-ENV-LB (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 21, 2022).

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

Brooklyn Suya -- https://www.brooklynsuya.com/ -- is an African
restaurant in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
          9224 Queens Boulevard, Ste. #740010
          Rego Park, NY 11374
          Phone: (914) 487-3592
          Email: ls@aidalalaw.com


BRYANT UNIVERSITY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bryant University.
The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Bryant University, Case No.
1:22-cv-08082 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 21, 2022).

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

Bryant University -- https://www.bryant.edu/ -- is a private
university in Smithfield, Rhode Island. It has two colleges, the
College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Business, and is
accredited by the New England Commission of Higher Education.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


BTS ON THE RIVER: Bennett Seeks to Certify Class of Entertainers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENNETT et al v. BTS ON
THE RIVER, LLC et al, Case No. (), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying a class of:

   "All entertainers/dancers who worked at BTS's On The River at
   any time on or after [insert date 3 years before issuance of
   notice]. B. BT's Entertainers' Perform Similar Jobs, Are Paid
   and Classified the Same Way, And Are All Subject to
   Defendants' Unlawful Policies and Practices of Not Paying
   Wages and Requiring Their Adult Entertainers to Pay to Work."

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants willfully violated the
minimum wage provisions of the Fair labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of this case as a
collective action under the FLSA and authorization to send notice
to putative class members to afford them the opportunity to join as
their statutes of limitations continue to run until they opt into
this matter.

The Plaintiffs, Opt-In Plaintiffs and the putative class members
worked as adult entertainers at the BT's On The River located at
3615 NW, South River Drive, Miami, Florida 33142 ("BT").

The Defendants own and operate three adult entertainment clubs in
the Miami, Florida area, and one adult entertainment club in
Pompano Beach, Florida.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 22,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E8sz9n
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carlos Leach, Esq.
          The Leach Firm, P.A.
          631 S. Orlando Ave., Ste 300
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 574-4999
          Facsimile: (833) 813-7513
          E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com

               - and -

          Mutepe Akemon, Esq.
          The Richards Law Group, LLC
          P.O. Box 360295
          Decatur, GA 30036
          Telephone: (404) 289-6816
          Facsimile: (404) 795-0727

               - and -

          Ainsworth G. Dudley, Esq.
          Dudley Law, LLC
          4200 Northside Parkway, NW Building 1, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 687-8205
          E-mail: adudleylaw@gmail.com

BUTLER UNIVERSITY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Butler University.
The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Butler University, Case No.
1:22-cv-08179 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2022).

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

Butler University -- https://www.butler.edu/ -- is a private
university in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal

CAKE MORTGAGE: Underpays Mortgage Loan Officers, Assi Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY ASSI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAKE MORTGAGE CORPORATION d/b/a MILLENNIAL
HOME LENDING, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-06758 (C.D. Cal.,
September 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code,
and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to
pay overtime, failure to pay final wages, failure to provide meal
and rest breaks, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff worked as a mortgage loan officer at the Defendant's
Los Angeles, California office.

Cake Mortgage Corporation, doing business as Millennial Home
Lending, is a mortgage lender in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Arthur Petrousian, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         633 West Fifth Street, Suite 2652
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 787-8590
         E-mail: apetrousian@forthepeople.com

                 - and -

         Gregory R. Schmitz, Esq.
         Ryan D. Naso, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
         Orlando, FL 32801
         Telephone: (407) 204-2170
         Facsimile: (407) 563-9986
         E-mail: gschmitz@forthepeople.com
                 rnaso@forthepeople.com
                 mbarreiro@forthepeople.com

CANADA: RCMP Class Action Over Bullying, Harassment Gets Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon, writing for CBC News, reports that a national
class-action lawsuit against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
alleging failure to provide a workplace free from bullying,
intimidation, and harassment, has been certified by the Federal
Court of Canada.

The class action seeks more than $1.1 billion in damages on behalf
of all current and former RCMP members and civilians, special
constables and reservists who worked for the national force between
Jan. 1, 1995, and the date a collective agreement becomes or became
applicable to a bargaining unit to which they belong.

Veteran Mounties Geoffrey Greenwood and Todd Gray, of Alberta, the
representative plaintiffs, allege a culture of systemic bullying,
intimidation and harassment permeated the organization from its
highest levels and affected everyone who worked for the national
force.

The RCMP denies the allegations, which have yet to be proven in
court.

The certification on Sept. 20 follows the Supreme Court of Canada's
rejection in March of the federal government's attempt to stop the
massive class action from proceeding.

"There is no room for harassment, bullying and intimidation in the
RCMP," the force said in a news release issued Sept. 24 from its
headquarters in Ottawa.

"It is incumbent on every employee to come forward and speak out
against this behaviour, and for our leaders and supervisors to take
immediate action to stop it.

"We continue to strongly encourage anyone who feels they are the
victim of inappropriate behaviour to report it. Prevention is key
to ensuring that the workplace remains a safe and respectful space
for everyone."

No cost to participate
Eligible members will automatically be included in the class action
unless they complete a form to opt out by Nov. 23.

There is no cost to be a class member. Counsel has entered into an
agreement with the representative plaintiffs with respect to legal
fees and disbursements, according to information on the RCMP's
website.

"This agreement provides that counsel will not receive payment for
their work unless and until the class action is successful or
monies are recovered from the defendants," it states.

Under the current agreement, counsel will seek up to one-third of
any damages awarded, but this must be approved by the court and the
percentage awarded could be adjusted, the website notes.

The court has appointed Toronto-based Kim Spencer McPhee Barristers
as class counsel.

Anyone who has an ongoing lawsuit with respect to bullying,
intimidation or harassment in the RCMP, and wishes to participate
in the class action, must discontinue their lawsuit before 5 p.m.,
ET, on Nov. 23.

The Attorney General of Canada had appealed the class action to the
Supreme Court of Canada, arguing an RCMP member's claims of
harassment and bullying can be addressed by filing a grievance or
harassment complaint or through an internal RCMP code of conduct
investigation.

But in their statement of claim, Greenwood and Gray contend
internal channels to handle such complaints are ineffective because
they depend upon the chain of command, which they allege is often
made up of people who were either responsible for the offending
behaviour or acted to protect others.

The Supreme Court, as usual, did not give its reasons in dismissing
the federal government's application for leave to appeal. [GN]

CARBONITE INC: Luna Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUBEN A. LUNA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
CARBONITE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11662-LTS (D. Mass.), the
Lead Plaintiff Construction Industry and Laborers' Joint Pension
Trust asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action to proceed as a class action
      pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 23(a)
      and (b)(3);

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiff to serve as Class
      Representative; and

   3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP to serve as
      Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

Carbonite. is an American company that offers an online backup
service, available to Windows and macOS users.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 16,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UKNvZY
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Robert D. Gerson, Esq.
          Philip T. Merenda, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  rgerson@rgrdlaw.com
                  pmerenda@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP
          110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
          Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
          Telephone: (781) 431-2231
          Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

CAROLINA MOTOR: Johnson Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WES JOHNSON, and TAMEKIA
BOTTOMS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, The AAA Carolina Savings & Investment Plan and The Auto
Group Tax Deferred Savings Plan, v. CAROLINA MOTOR CLUB, INC. d/b/a
AAA Carolinas; and THE AUTO CLUB GROUP,  the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement or,
      alternately, holding a hearing to review the settlement
      agreement, thus issuing a Preliminary Approval Order;

   2. approving the proposed Settlement Notice and authorize
      distribution of same to the Settlement Class;

   3. preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class for
      settlement purposes;

   4. scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing for purpose of
      receiving evidence, argument, and any objections to the
      settlement agreement; and

   5. granting final approval of the parties' settlement and
      dismissing the Complaint in the action with prejudice.

Carolina Motor Club provides car services. The Company offers
roadside assistances, towing services, sells cars, books travel,
and offers insurance.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UDCMA9
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew L. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Douglas W. Hanna, Esq.
          FITZGERALD, HANNA
          SULLIVAN, PLLC
          119 Brookstown Ave., Ste. 402
          Winston-Salem, NC 27101
          Telephone: (336) 793-4365
          E-mail: andy@fhslitigation.com
                  dhanna@fhslitigation.com

CDK ENTERPRISES: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CDK Enterprises, Inc.
The case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. CDK Enterprises, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-08208 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2022).

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

CDK Enterprises, Inc. -- https://www.cdkenterprises.com/ -- offers
an online toy store full of fun and unique gifts and products for
the young and the young at heart.[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


CENTURY REALTY: Court Enters Final Order & Judgment in Baloga Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, enters Final Order and
Judgment in the case, STEPHEN BALOGA, ROBERT BAME, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. LAWRENCE W. MAXWELL, et al., Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-02936-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.).

On July 20, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Third
Amended Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement
and the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Judge Honeywell conducted a Final Fairness Hearing on
July 20, 2022, and for the reasons stated therein and at the
hearing, she enters the Final Order and Judgment.

The class action involves the principal claims of: a) the inclusion
by the Defendants of allegedly illegal clauses in the homeowner
association governing documents causing subdivision homeowners to
be charged "system assessment fees" for cable television and
security monitoring; and b) homeowners who relied upon
representations by the Developer Defendants that the property would
be a continuing care campus or that their property would be
maintenance or worry free.

The Plaintiffs assert the illegal clauses in the homeowner
association governing documents, the "system assessment fees," and
the "continuing care campus" or "maintenance or worry free"
representations violate both the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization ("RICO") statute, 18 U.S.C. Sectuib 1961, et
seq., and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(FDUTPA), Part II, Chapter 501, Fla. Stat.

The Defendants deny any fault, wrongdoing, or liability to the
Settlement Class Members for any relief. After engaging in
discovery, the Parties attended mediation where they reached a
class-wide settlement subject to court approval.

On Feb. 7, 2022, the Court granted the parties' Amended Joint
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc.
64) and certified the following class for settlement purposes:
"Settlement Class means Persons who owned or formerly owned any
property in Vienna Square during the time period from Nov. 27, 2015
to June 11, 2021 who were subject to a system assessment and who
relied on representations by the Developer Defendants that the
property would be a continuing care campus or that their property
would be maintenance or worry free. The term Settlement Class does
not include, and specifically excludes (i) any and all of the
Defendants and any entities owned, controlled or affiliated with
any of the Defendants, and (ii) any attorneys of record for any of
the Parties in the Action."

On July 20, 2022, at the Fairness Hearing, among other things,
Judge Honeywell determined that the Settlement Class satisfied the
requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy,
predominance and superiority. She also granted the Parties' request
for final approval of their settlement agreement.

Judge Honeywell approved notice to the class by United States mail
and with weblink online resources. The Settlement Administrator
timely mailed the approved Class Notice and sent it electronically
thereafter to those Class Members who provided their e-mail
addresses. See Declaration of Class Administrator, attached to
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Third Amended Motion for Final Approval of
the Class Action Settlement. Accordingly, the class notification
was properly effectuated.

In preliminarily approving the settlement, the Court established a
deadline of May 11, 2022 for any members of the Classes to opt out
or object to the settlement. None of the Class Members opted out or
filed an objection. The low opt-out and objection rates weigh in
favor of granting final approval of the settlement.

When the Court preliminarily approved the settlement, it
preliminarily approved the parties' stipulated agreement to pay
fees at $38,115 as requested in the Plaintiffs' unopposed amended
motion for attorneys' fees and expense, but indicated the final fee
award was subject to the Court's approval. With the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, the
Class Counsel provided documentation supporting their request for
fees and expenses in the total amount of $38,115. Judge Honeywell
has reviewed the Motion and supporting documents and finds that the
request is reasonable.

Being fully advised of the premises, Judge Honeywell holds that the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best
interest of all those affected by it. She approves the Class Action
Settlement Agreement. She certified the Class defined.

Any amounts of the settlement fund remaining in the escrow account
of the Class Counsel, Daniel W. Perry, Esq., 200 days after Class
Counsel distributes all of the checks required to be distributed in
accordance with the settlement agreement, will be paid as a
donation to the cy pres recipient: Bay Area Legal Services Inc.,
1302 N. 19th Street, Suite 400, Tampa, Florida 33605-5230. Bay Area
Legal Services Inc., is an entity "dedicated to providing free
civil legal services to qualified and low-income residents and
nonprofits throughout the Tampa Bay area." The Class Counsel will
file a notice of remittance of the cy pres funds to the Court
within 14 days of such remittance.

The Court retains jurisdiction over the interpretation,
enforcement, and implementation of the Class Action Settlement
Agreement and of the Final Order and Judgment for a period of one
year.

Upon entry of the Final Order and Judgment all Parties in the
Action, together with their respective counsel and other identified
parties have executed and are therefore forever bound by the Mutual
Releases set forth in Section 5.0 (including subparts) of the Class
Action Settlement Agreement.

Judge Honeywell dismisses case with prejudice. The Clerk of Court
is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2022 Final Order &
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/bd4yhxd2 from
Leagle.com.


CHRISTY SPORTS: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christy Sports, LLC.
The case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Christy Sports, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-08209 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2022).

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

Christy Sports -- https://www.christysports.com/ -- is the leader
in skis, ski boots, snowboards and bindings.[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


CIG LOGISTICS: Mobley Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
RONALD MOBLEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. CIG Logistics LLC, and Continental
Intermodal Group - Trucking LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00226, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on Sept. 9, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:22-cv-00802-P to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brought this suit seeking unpaid wages, including
overtime wages, and all other available relief under the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

CIG Logistics operates as a logistics company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          E-mail: trang@tranlf.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ryan Donald Marrone, Esq.
          FERGUSON BRASWELL FRASER KUBASTA PC
          2500 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
          Plano, TX 75093
          Telephone: (214) 378-9111
          Facsimile: (972) 378-9115
          E-mail: rmarrone@fbfk.law

CINTAS CORPORATION: Files Writ of Certiorari in Hawkins ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
CINTAS CORPORATION, et al. filed on September 8, 2022, a petition
for writ of certiorari, assigned Case No. 22-226, asking the U.S.
Supreme Court to review the judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case captioned as Raymond
Hawkins, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Cintas Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-3156.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brought this class action suit against the Defendants for
breach of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Insurance Security Act (ERISA) by allegedly selecting high-cost
investment options for the Cintas Partners' Plan and allowing the
Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees.

The Defendants moved to compel arbitration of the claims in
accordance with the arbitration provisions in the Plaintiffs'
employment agreements in which they agreed that all of their rights
or claims arising out of or in any way related to their employment
with Cintas, such as rights or claims arising under ERISA, shall be
resolved through arbitration.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied
the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. It concluded that the
Plaintiffs' agreements to arbitrate rights or claims arising under
ERISA was unenforceable because the Plan was not a party to those
agreements, and because the Plaintiffs were bringing their claims
on behalf of the Plan, not on behalf of themselves.

On April 27, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the Plaintiffs'
agreements to arbitrate were unenforceable due to the
representative nature of claims under Sec. 502(a)(2) of ERISA. It
held that although the claims are brought by individual Plaintiffs,
it is the Plan that takes legal claim to the recovery, suggesting
that the claim really belongs to the Plan. Therefore, an
arbitration agreement that binds only individual participants
cannot bring such claims into arbitration. [BN]

Defendants-Petitioners CINTAS CORPORATION, et al., are represented
by:

            Robert N. Hochman, Esq.
            Mark B. Blocker, Esq.
            Caroline A. Wong, Esq.
            Sidley Austin LLP
            One South Dearborn
            Chicago, IL 60603
            Telephone: (312) 853-7000
            E-mail: rhochman@sidley.com

CIRCLE 9: Gore Suit Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID GORE, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CIRCLE 9 RESOURCES,
LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-01112-G (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Chlarles
B. Goodwin entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the Putative Fair Labor Standards
      Act (FLSA) Class under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) for the
      purpose of giving notice of this overtime wage case to
      similarly situated employees of Defendant;

   2. approving the unopposed form of notice proposed by the
      Plaintiff; and

   3. approving the notice and opt-in schedule as follows:

                Description                       Deadline

      -- Defendant to produce the              Sept.  27, 2022
         names, last known addresses,
         personal email addresses,
         if known to Defendant,
         cell phone numbers,
         and dates of employment of
         the Putative FLSA Class
         members in a usable electronic
         format:

      -- Plaintiff’s counsel shall send        Oct. 12, 2022
         by email a copy of the approved
         notice and consent forms
         and shall send the email
         and text to the Putative FLSA
         Class members:

      -- Deadline for the Putative FLSA        Nov. 14, 2022
         Class members to return their
         signed consent forms for
         filing with the Court:

      -- Plaintiff's counsel is authorized    Oct. 12, 2022
         to send by mail the reminder
         postcard to the Putative FLSA
         Class members to remind them
         of the deadline for the
         submission of the consent forms:

Circle 9 is an oil & energy company and has headquarters in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

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

CITIZENS BANK: Court Modifies Class Certification Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. HABIBA CHIRCHIR, on
behalf of herself and a similarly situated class of persons, v
CITIZENS BANK, N.A. d/b/a Citizens One Home Loans, Case No.
3:20-cv-00416 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert C. Chambers
entered an order modifying the class certification schedule as
follows.

   -- The Court suspends all deadlines pertaining to expert
      disclosures, completion of discovery requests, and
      completion of depositions. Deadlines pertaining to a
      motion for class certification, response to a motion for
      class certification, and mediation, remain unchanged. The
      Court will address the filing of a new Rule 26(f) Report
      of Parties' Planning Meeting after Third-Party Defendants
      file answers or responsive motions.

   -- The Court Directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order
      to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E4AEvB at no extra charge.[CC]

CLEVELAND, OH: Pickett Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT PICKETT, JR.,
KEYONNA JOHNSON, JAROME MONTGOMERY, ODESSA PARKS, and TINIYA
SHEPHERD f/k/a TINIYA HALL), on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, Case No. 1:19-cv-02911-SO
(N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying the following three classes:

  -- the Water Lien Class

     "All Black homeowners or residents in Cuyahoga County who
     have been obligated, within two years of the filing of the
     Complaint, to pay a debt assessed against their real
     property, wherein the debt arises from monies originally
     owed to Cleveland Water;"

  -- the Shutoff Class

     "All persons who, within two years of the filing of the
     Complaint, have had their water service disconnected by
     Cleveland Water and did not receive advance written notice
     of the shutoff or their right to request a hearing to
     dispute the impending shutoff;" and

  -- the Overbilling Class

     "All persons who, within two years of the filing of the
     Complaint, have been overbilled for water services by
     Cleveland Water and did not receive an opportunity to
     contest their bill through a hearing."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UzhvI5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer A. Holmes, Esq.
          Charles McLaurin, Esq.
          Arielle Humphries, Esq.
          Alexandra Sloane Thompson, Esq.
          Tiffani Burgess, Esq.
          NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
          EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
          700 14th Street NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 682-1300
          E-mail: jholmes@naacpldf.org
                  cmclaurin@naacpldf.org
                  ahumphries@naacpldf.org
                  athompson@naacpldf.org
                  tburgess@naacpldf.org

               - and -

          Neil K. Roman, Esq.
          Henry Liu, Esq.
          Alexandra Sloane Thompson, Esq.
          Simeon Botwinick, Esq.
          Emily Mondry, Esq.
          Taryn Winston, Esq.
          Elizabeth Ertle, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One CityCenter
          850 Tenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202)-662-6000
          E-mail: nroman@cov.com
                  hliu@cov.com
                  sbotwinick@cov.com
                  emondry@cov.com
                  twinston@cov.com
                  eertle@cov.com

               - and -

          Avery S. Friedman, Esq.
          AVERY FRIEDMAN & ASSOCIATES
          701 The City Club Building
          850 Euclid Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114-3358
          Telephone: (216) 621-9282
          E-mail: avery@lawfriedman.com
                  fairhousing@gmail.com

COACH FOUNDATION: Illegally Records Conversations, Michaels Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ESTHER MICHAELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COACH FOUNDATION, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-06891 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 23, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's unauthorized and illegal recordings of telephone
conversations with Plaintiff without any notification or warning to
Plaintiff or Class Members in violation of the California Invasion
of Privacy Act.

On or about August 2022, the Plaintiff received an email from
Defendant, inviting Plaintiff to hire Defendant for website
development, marketing, and book publishing. Intrigued by
Defendant's email, Plaintiff eventually decided to set up a phone
call with a member of Defendant's staff.

According to the complaint, the Defendant had and followed a policy
and practice of not advising or warning Plaintiff and Class Members
immediately before or at the outset of the calls that the cellular
telephone communications with Defendant would be recorded, causing
Plaintiff and Class Members damages and invasion of privacy.

Coach Foundation, Inc. iss a private, not for profit
community-based organization based in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
          Gil Melili, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  pamela@kazlg.com
                  gil@kazlg.com

COCA-COLA CO: Spaner Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 11th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN SPANER is taking an appeal from a court order denying her
motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Kathleen
Spaner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Coca-Cola Co., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-22210-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brought this class action suit against the Defendant for
alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to the
cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior
express written consent.

On October 25, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.


Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra entered a Report and
Recommendation recommending denial of the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

On August 10, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an objection to Magistrate
Judge Becerra's Report and Recommendation.

On August 24, 2022, the Defendant filed a response to the
Plaintiff's objection of Magistrate Judge Becerra's Report and
Recommendation.

Judge Jose E. Martinez adopted Magistrate Judge Becerra's decision
and denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Kathleen Spaner v. The Coca-Cola
Co., Case No. 22-90014, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit, filed on September 12, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner KATHLEEN SPANER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, PA
            888 7th Ave., 3rd Fl.
            New York, NY 10019

                   - and -

            Scott Bursor, Esq.
            Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, PA
            701 Brickell Ave., Ste. 1420
            Miami, FL 10019
            Telephone: (305) 330-5512

Defendant-Respondent THE COCA-COLA COMPANY is represented by:

            Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
            Zachary Andrew McEntyre, Esq.
            KING & SPALDING, LLP
            1180 Peachtree St. N.E., Ste. 1600
            Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
            Telephone: (404) 572-4600

                   - and -

            Cory William Eichhorn, Esq.
            HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
            701 Brickell Ave., Ste. 3300
            Miami, FL 33131
            Telephone: (305) 789-7709

                   - and -

            Mark S. Melodia, Esq.
            REED SMITH, LLP
            136 Main St., Ste. 250
            Princeton, NJ 08540
            Telephone: (609) 987-0050

                   - and -

            Anthony J. Palermo, Esq.
            HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
            100 N. Tampa St., Ste. 4100
            Tampa, FL 33602
            Telephone: (813) 227-6321

                   - and -

            Nipun J. Patel, Esq.
            HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
            2929 Arch St., Ste. 800
            Philadelphia, PA 19104

COLGATE PALMOLIVE: Exposes Consumers to Asbestos, Rice Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY T. RICE and TEREE RICE, H/W, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE
COMPANY (for Mennen); MINERAL AND PIGMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a
WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC.; WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC.;
JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 51-75,
Defendants, Case No. MID-L-004720-22 (N.J. Super., Middlesex Cty.,
September 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, strict
liability in tort, intentional conspiracy, and violation of New
Jersey Products Liability Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' manufacturing, distribution,
and marketing of asbestos-containing and/or asbestos contaminated
Mennen Baby Magic talcum powder. As a result, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers were exposed to respirable asbestos
fibers. The Plaintiff contracted mesothelioma and suffered from
various diverse injuries and attendant complications, says the
suit.

Colgate Palmolive Company is a manufacturer of consumer products,
with its principal place of business in New Jersey.

Mineral and Pigment Solutions, Inc., formerly known as Whittaker,
Clark & Daniels, Inc., is a supplier of industrial and specialty
chemicals, with its principal place of business in New Jersey.

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. is a manufacturer, supplier or
distributor of talc, with its principal place of business in New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Perry L. Shusterman, Esq.
         MEIROWITZ & WASSERBERG, LLP
         1040 6th Avenue, Suite 12B
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 897-1988

COLLIER DEVELOPMENT: Redding Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mikala Redding, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. COLLIER DEVELOPMENT RESTAURANTS, INC., COLLIER &
DAUGHTERS, INC., TRI-C, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00332 (E.D. Tenn.,
Sept. 21, 2022), is brought to challenge the policies and practices
of the Defendants of paying the Plaintiff less than minimum wage
and relied on the tip credit, and paying the Plaintiff the tipped
minimum wage while they were performing non-tip producing work in
violation the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants pay their Servers, including Plaintiff and the
Putative Collective, at an hourly rate below minimum wage. By
paying Plaintiff and Putative Collective Members less than the
minimum wage per hour, the Defendants are taking advantage of a tip
credit which allows the Defendants to count a portion of the
amounts Servers receive as tips towards Defendants' obligation to
pay tipped employees a minimum wage.

However, Defendants maintain a policy and practice whereby Servers
are required, during their regular shifts, to perform non-tip
producing "side work" unrelated to the Servers' tipped occupation,
as well as non-tip producing side work related to the Servers'
tipped occupation. Specifically, Defendants maintain a policy and
practice whereby Servers are required to spend a substantial amount
of time performing non-tip producing side work, including, but not
limited to, general cleaning of the restaurant, preparing food for
customers, refilling condiments, and clearing tables.

While Plaintiff and Putative Collective Members were performing
non-tip producing side work, Defendants continued to pay Plaintiff
and Putative Collective Members less than minimum wage and relied
on the tip credit to meet Defendants' obligation to pay Plaintiff
and Putative Collective Members minimum wage. The Defendants'
policy and practice of paying Plaintiff and Putative Collective
Members the tipped minimum wage while they were performing non-tip
producing work violated the FLSA. As such, the Plaintiff and the
Putative Collective Members were not compensated appropriately at
the minimum wage mandated by the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt Server
paid on an hourly basis.

The Defendants jointly own and operate multiple restaurants in
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Bigelow, Esq.
          BIGELOW LEGAL PLLC
          4235 Hillsboro Pike, Ste. 301
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Phone: (615) 829-8986
          Email: rbigelow@bigelowlegal.com

               - and –

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

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher, N.W., Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com


COLT BUILDERS: Fierros Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MANUEL FIERROS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLT BUILDERS CORP., a Utah
Corporation, and DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, Defendant, Case No.
CV-22-003178, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Stanislaus, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 8,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-at-00930 to the proceeding.

In this class action complaint, the Plaintiff asserts the following
causes of action: (1) failure to pay state minimum wage; (2)
failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide rest
periods and pay missed rest break premiums; (4) failure to provide
meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums; (5) failure to
reimburse business expenses; (6) failure to furnish timely and
accurate wage statements; (7) waiting time penalties; (8) failure
to pay timely wages; and (9) unfair competition.

Colt Builders Corp. is a construction company.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq.
          Angel R. Sevilla, Esq.
          Julie Y. Zong, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          50 California Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
          Telephone: (415) 394-9400
          Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
          E-mail: Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com
                  Angel.Sevilla@jacksonlewis.com
                  Julie.Zong@jacksonlewis.com

COLTER ENERGY: Joyce Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Joyce, individually and for others similarly situated v.
COLTER ENERGY SERVICES USA INC., Case No. C-63-CV-2022-5808 was
removed from the Circuit Court of the Court of Common Pleas of
Washington County to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 26, 2022, and assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01367.

The Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff, along with a class of
similarly situated persons, are entitled to additional compensation
pursuant to the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Complaint requests monetary
relief, including liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, interest,
and expenses. The Plaintiff alleges that he has been employed by
Defendant as a field supervisor for seven years and therefore
alleges that he is owed additional compensation for this time
period; the Complaint avers that the Plaintiff is owed additional
wages for approximately 500 hours per year, and that he is owed
unspecified overtime pay.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael T. McDonnell, III, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          Two Logan Square,
          100 N. 18th St., Suite 1920
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-4104
          Phone: (215) 299-4384
          Email: Michael.McDonnell@KutakRock.com


COLUMBUS LIFE INSURANCE: Young Sues Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
William H. Young, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COLUMBUS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:22-cv-00553-DRC (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 26, 2022), is brought for
breach of contract and conversion to recover amounts that the
Defendant has charged and collected from the Plaintiff and members
of a class of life insurance policy owners in excess of amounts
authorized by the express terms of their policies.

The terms of the Plaintiff's life insurance policy provide for an
"Account Value" consisting of monies held in trust by the Defendant
for the Plaintiff. Over the course of several years, the Defendant
has deducted monies from the Plaintiff's Account Value in breach of
his policy's terms. The Defendant is contractually bound to deduct
only those charges that are explicitly identified and authorized by
the terms of its life insurance policies. Despite the unambiguous
language of the policy, which is a fully integrated agreement, the
Defendant deducts charges from the Account Values of the Plaintiff
and the proposed class in excess of amounts specifically permitted
by their policies.

The Defendant has caused material harm to the Plaintiff and the
proposed class by improperly draining monies they have accumulated
in the Account Values under their policies. Every unauthorized
dollar taken from policy owners is one less dollar on which policy
owners earn interest and one less dollar that can be: applied to
cover future policy costs; used to increase the death benefit; used
as collateral for policy loans; or withdrawn as cash, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual and resident of the State of Ohio.

Columbus Life Insurance Company is a life insurance company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, and
maintains its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ellen M. Kramer, Esq.
          Joshua R. Cohen, Esq.
          COHEN ROSENTHAL + KRAMER LLP
          3208 Clinton Avenue
          One Clinton Place
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-815-9500
          Email: emk@crklaw.com
                 jcohen@crklaw.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
          Ethan Lange, Esq.
          David A. Hickey, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7100
          Fax: 816-714-7101
          Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                 perkins@stuevesiegel.com
                 lange@stuevesiegel.com
                 hickey@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Phone: 816-561-6500
          Fax: 816-561-6501
          Email: @millerschirger.com
                 mlytle@millerschirger.com
                 jfeierabend@millerschirger.com


COMSTAR LLC: Moran Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comstar, LLC. The
case is styled as John Moran, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Comstar, LLC, Case No. 2277CV00851 (Mass.
Super. Ct., Essex Cty., Sept. 7, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."

Comstar -- https://comstar.biz/ -- specializes in internet
marketing, web design, e-commerce, CMS, hosting, app and web
development solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Hartigan, Esq.
          Kathryne D. Masson, Esq.
          Kevin John McCullough, Esq.
          MAZOW/MCCULLOUGH P.C.
          10 Derby Square, 4th Floor
          Salem, MA 01970


CONSERVATORY OF PIANO: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Frazze
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephanie Frazee, v.
Conservatory of Piano, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:22-cv-02198-MHW-CMV
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Mcihael H. Watson entered an order
approving Parties' settlement agreement including its request for
attorney's fees and costs, to settle the Plaintiffs FLSA claims.

  -- The Court dismisses the case with prejudice but retains
     jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement
     agreement.

  -- The Clerk is directed to close the case.

The parties represent that Plaintiff will receive a $5,000 payment,
which represents both her alleged unpaid wages and liquidated
damages. This payment is reasonable. Moreover, attorney's fees and
costs in the amount of $6, 000 are
reasonable in this case, the Parties contend.

The Plaintiff Stephanie Frazee sued Conservatory of Piano , Inc.
and Penny L. Popper for unpaid overtime wages and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and analogous state
laws.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to properly pay
overtime to Plaintiff because the Defendants improperly classified
her as a salaried employee.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SmbDA9 at no extra charge.[CC]



COOK OUT: Mobley Sues Over Gender Discrimination in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Mobley, for and on behalf of herself and other persons
similarly situated v. COOK OUT, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-00190-RWS-JCF (N.D. Ga., Sept. 21, 2022), is brought to
challenge discriminatory compensation practices of the Defendant as
they relate to former and current female employees and alleging
that the Defendant is engaged in a demonstrable policy of gender
discrimination in compensation in violation of the Equal Pay Act
("EPA").

Despite touting itself as a leader in diversity; in reality the
Defendant devalues its female employees from the beginning of their
employment by paying them less than their similarly situated male
counterparts. Therefore, for many women, the company pay hierarchy
is an unclimbable mountain where no matter their seniority or job
title, their pay grades will always be less than that of their male
counterparts.

This case, however, is not just about entry level decisions that
work to the detriment of women. The career trajectory of these
groups is blunted because they are given smaller pay increases for
equal work. The Defendant accomplishes this by judging the
performance of its female employees more harshly than males, which
means lower salaries, smaller bonuses, and fewer fringe benefits.
Thus, upon information and belief, women have been excluded from
pay comparable to their male counterparts.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this representative action
against the Defendant for failing to provide equal remuneration to
women who perform jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and
responsibility in violation of the EPA and for denying them equal
pay in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a
result of the Defendant's policies, patterns, and practices, female
employees receive less compensation than their male counterparts,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a female who has been employed by Cook Out as a
General Manager for 9 years.

Cook Out is a privately owned American quick service restaurant
chain founded and operating in North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, Maryland, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee D. Winston, Esq.
          Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
          WINSTON COOKS, LLC
          351 24th Street North
          Box 122
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 502-0970
          Facsimile: (205) 278-5876
          Email: lwinston@winstoncooks.com
                rcooks@winstoncooks.com

               - and –

          Alan Howard Garber, Esq.
          THE GARBER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4994 Lower Roswell Road, Suite 14
          Marietta, GA 30068
          Email: ahgarber@garberlaw.net

CRONOS GROUP: Court Ruling in Securities Class Suit Discussed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth A. Dekker, Esq., of Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, in an
article for Mondaq, reports that in Reasons released on September
26 in Badeesha v. Cronos Group Inc., the Court of Appeal for
Ontario unanimously overturned a decision refusing to grant leave
to proceed with a misrepresentation class action against a cannabis
company under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act. In doing so, the
Court of Appeal found that the Superior Court judge below had erred
in characterizing the proposed class action as involving 7,449
misrepresentations and in requiring the plaintiff to show that each
of these separate misrepresentations materially contributed to a
loss in share price during the relevant period in order to obtain
leave to proceed.

By way of background, the defendants in the proposed class action
are a Canadian company involved in the cultivation, manufacturing
and marketing of cannabis and cannabis-derived products for both
the medical and recreational markets and members of its management.
In the proposed class action, the plaintiff alleges that:

"[D]uring the class period, Cronos and other public cannabis
issuers were under pressure to show increasing revenues and
sustainable growth. Faced with that pressure, Cronos allegedly
"orchestrated a scheme to inflate its reported revenue figures" by
entering "into simultaneous transactions with third parties to both
sell to them cannabis dry flower and to purchase back cannabis
resign and tinctures, transactions that were concluded in
contemplation of one another." The claim alleges that Cronos then
improperly "booked these sales as revenue" rather than "properly
accounting for these transactions at the carrying value of
inventory transferred by Cronos"

It was alleged that these misrepresentations affected the share
price and that, when the misrepresentations were corrected in a
March 2020 press release, the subsequent drop in the share price
caused damages attributable to those misrepresentations for which
the defendants are liable. The defendants disputed this, saying
that there were other causes for the drop in share price, including
the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and an announcement of the
delayed U.S. distribution of a new product called PEACE+.

On the initial motion, Superior Court Justice Edward Morgan
declined to grant leave to proceed under Part XXIII.1 of the
Securities Act, under which a purchasers of securities on the
secondary market (i.e. the stock market) are required to show a
reasonable possibility of success at trial to obtain leave to
proceed with a claim. In this case, Mr. Justice Morgan referenced"
. . . a litany of what he characterized as separately and
independently actionable misrepresentations committed by Cronos and
the individual Defendants during 2019. . . . When one tallies it
all up, there are allegations of just under 8,000
misrepresentations covered by the Plaintiff's pleading." In finding
that the leave test was not met, Justice Morgan cited the likely
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and found that the plaintiff had
not shown that each separate misrepresentation had materially
contributed to a loss in share price during the relevant period.

The Court of Appeal fundamentally disagreed with Justice Morgan's
characterization of the claim as being based on 7,449
misrepresentations and found that this approach to the claim
tainted his analysis. Rather, when viewed properly:

". . . the claim alleges one central misrepresentation, namely that
Cronos misrepresented its revenues for 2019 Q1 and Q3 by treating
transactions involving the exchange of cannabis products with a
third party as generating revenue . . . . Cronos ultimately
corrected those documents and line items. The issue of whether this
core misrepresentation should be broken down and treated as several
misrepresentations for the purpose of calculating damages is to be
decided at trial and not at this early stage of the proceedings."

In deciding that leave to proceed should be granted, Justice
Favreau on behalf of a unanimous panel, reiterated past cases'
prescription that in order to obtain leave to proceed a plaintiff
must be able to show that there was a misrepresentation, which is
defined under the Securities Act as "an untrue statement of
material fact." Material fact is defined as "a fact that would
reasonably be expected to have a significant effect on the market
price of value of the securities." As explained by the Court of
Appeal citing the Supreme Court of Canada's 2015 Theratechnologies
decision, the test for leave is meant to be "more than a speed
bump" but is not a mini-trial. A plaintiff must be able to offer
both a plausible analysis of the applicable legislation and some
credible evidence to support the claim.

In this case, it was found that the court below made a palpable and
overriding error in characterizing the action as involving 7,449
misrepresentations rather than ". . . a core allegation that Cronos
and the other defendants misrepresented their revenues by
characterizing the exchange transactions as generating revenue."
The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge's analysis in the
court below tipped "into the realm of a mini-trial" and, finding
that "the evidence in support of the claim is well beyond de
minimus," it overturned the decision below and granted leave for
the plaintiff to proceed.

The issue of certification of the action as a class action was not
decided but, rather, remitted back to the Superior Court for a
decision.

This case is just the latest example of how the courts continue to
wrestle with the application of the leave test under Part XXIII.1
of the Securities Act. Seven years after the "more than a speed
bump but not a mini-trial" directive of the Supreme Court of Canada
in Theratechnologies, courts continue to be challenged when
applying that directive -- and other appellate guidance -- to the
complex situations that arise in Canada's capital markets. [GN]

CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Bid to Compel Discovery in Coe Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONALD COE, et al., individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT CENTER, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
22-2047-TC-ADM (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery and
Remove Confidential Designations.

The case involves living conditions for elderly and/or disabled,
low-income residents at an apartment complex in Kansas City,
Kansas, called Cross-Lines Retirement Center. Plaintiffs Donald
Coe, Linda Smith, and Edward Yost are Cross-Lines residents who
brought this action individually and on behalf of a purported class
of residents. They allege that the apartment complex owner,
Cross-Lines Retirement Center Inc., and its property manager, Young
Management Corp., failed to provide safe and sanitary conditions,
and to make reasonable accommodations to support disabled
residents.

The Plaintiffs' complaint paints a portrait of Cross-Lines as a
50-year-old retirement center that has been "left to rot." They
allege that when Cross-Lines first opened, it was a model center
dedicated to promoting senior citizens' health, security, and
happiness. But now, according to them, its residents are subjected
to "bed-bug infestations, decaying rodent bodies, flooding,
leaking, and mold," not to mention "medieval sanitation, a
frightening deficit of secure fire-evacuation routes for the
disabled, lack of reasonable security measures, a reduction in
activity offerings, and, generally, living conditions that are far
more likely to lead to a premature demise than to longer living."

The Plaintiffs bring the case as a "proposed class action and mass
tort which seeks injunctive relief and damages." They assert claims
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101
et seq., and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et seq.,
as well as for breach of duties imposed by common law and Kansas
statutes.

Discovery is underway for the class-certification stage of the
case. By way of the current motion, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
compel the Defendants to produce (1) reservation-of-rights letters
tendered by defendants' insurance companies, (2) premises
inventories of individual apartment units, and (3) unredacted rent
rolls for the purported class period. They also ask the Court to
strike the "confidential" designation on the insurance policies the
Defendants already produced.

The Plaintiffs first ask the Court to compel production of the
Defendants' correspondence with their liability insurance companies
pursuant to Document Request No. 2, which seeks: All insurance
agreements, surety bond, or other contractual agreement under which
an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all a
possible judgment in this case, and/or to indemnify or reimburse
for payments made to satisfy the judgment, along with a copy of all
tender letters and response letters (including any reservation of
rights letters).

The Defendants already produced copies of the insurance policies
themselves, but the Plaintiffs seek the further production of any
reservation-of-rights letters that an insurer tendered, as well as
the Defendants' responses to the same. The Defendants objected to
producing any such tender and response letters based on grounds of
relevance and privilege.

Judge Mitchell concludes that any reservation-of-rights letter the
Defendants received from their insurers is not subject to the
mandatory disclosure provisions of Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv). And the
Plaintiffs do not otherwise articulate how such correspondence is
relevant to the claims or defenses. Their request to compel
production of these communications is therefore denied.

Next, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel the Defendants to
produce the "premises inventories" for each of Cross-Lines' 205
apartment units since Feb. 1, 2017. Premises inventories are forms
that Kansas law requires to be completed when a tenant takes
possession of a unit that "detail the condition of the premises and
any furnishings or appliances."

The Defendants agreed to produce the premises inventories only for
the three named plaintiffs. In response to the Plaintiffs' motion
to compel the inventories for the remaining units, they object that
producing these inventories would be disproportional to the needs
of the case because their relevance is low and the burden of
producing the inventories is high.

Judge Mitchell adopts a different approach that should approximate
25% of the units. She says, the Defendants must produce premises
inventories from at least three units per floor (i.e., 42 units) to
include those occupied by the 23 individuals that the Plaintiffs'
initial disclosures identify as individuals represented by their
counsel. Under this scenario, defendants may need to produce
premises inventories for more than three units per floor if several
of the 23 individuals reside on a particular floor.

But, to the extent that less than three of the 23 individuals
reside on a particular floor, the Defendants must select additional
units on that particular floor so that the total is at least three
per floor. In addition, they must disclose to the Plaintiffs how
they selected the additional units beyond those of the 23
individuals -- whether they used particular criteria, drew them out
of a hat, etc.

This approach, according to Judge Mitchell, should generate a
representative sample of all Cross-Lines units without omitting
certain areas or floors. Moreover, the size of the sample should
reduce the burden on the Defendants to around 40 hours or less,
which seems more proportional to the needs of the case. Thus, Judge
Mitchell limits Document Request No. 34 to seeking the sample set
out and compels the Defendants to produce the same.

The Plaintiffs third request is that the Court compels the
Defendants to respond to Document Request No. 45, which seeks
copies of "rent rolls, including break-downs of all rents paid by
HUD and all rents paid by the putative class members." The
Defendants object on relevance grounds to providing "information
relating to `putative class members' since this is not a certified
class." But the Defendants argue that, should the Court compel
production of rent rolls, they "should be permitted to redact
portions that contain names and other personal information for any
putative class member."

Judge Mitchell holds that the Defendants have not demonstrated
sufficient potential harm to justify redacting the personal
information of putative class members in relevant documents. They
express a vague "concern of solicitation" of current and former
Cross-Lines residents by the Plaintiffs' counsel. But the
Plaintiffs' counsel is obviously governed by attorney ethics rules.
And the Defendants have not provided any explanation as to why
those solicitation rules are insufficient to warrant deviating from
the default rule that a party generally may not redact information
in otherwise discoverable documents.

Therefore, the Defendants have not met their burden of establishing
a specific, significant harm that would befall them or nonparties
if they produced unredacted rent rolls under the protective order
governing the case. In short, they have not shown good cause for a
protective order authorizing the redactions they seek. They are
therefore ordered to produce the rent rolls without redactions.

Finally, the Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants' "confidential"
designation on previously produced insurance policies and on any
to-be-produced reservation-of-rights letters. Because she denied
the portion of the Plaintiffs' motion seeking production of
reservation-of-rights letters, Judge Mitchell limits her analysis
to whether the Defendants' insurance policies should be protected
from public disclosure.

Judge Mitchell holds that it is the Defendants' burden to
demonstrate the necessity of maintaining the confidential
designation on the insurance policies, and they have not met this
burden. Thus, this portion of the Plaintiffs' motion is granted.
The Defendants are directed to reproduce the documents with the
confidential designation removed.

For these reasons, Judge Mitchell grants in part and denies in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery and Remove Confidential
Designations as set forth.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/mryh2b48 from Leagle.com.


CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Beck's Amended Bid for Class Cert. Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAVANDA BECK, ET AL., Plaintiff v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19cv818 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Christopher A.
Boyko of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, denies the Plaintiffs' amended Motion for Class
Certification.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a Class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 on their Ohio claims at Counts Two and Three of their
Amended Complaint. They propose to certify a class defined as: "All
current or former hourly, non-exempt employees of the County who
performed work for its Juvenile Court Division as Detention
Officers at any time between April 12, 2016 and the present, whose
record of hours worked were not made, kept or preserved by the
County and who were not compensated at a rate of one and one half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in
a workweek (the Ohio Class)."

In their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege three causes of
action. First, they allege Defendant Cuyahoga County failed to pay
them and the putative class overtime compensation at the statutory
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours
worked in excess of forty hours a week in violation of the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. Section 207(a)(1). Second, they allege the Defendant
willfully and knowingly failed to make, keep and preserve records
of the hours worked by them in violation of the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA") and the Ohio Constitution Art. Third,
the Plaintiffs allege the Defendant knowingly and willfully
violated the OMFWSA and the Ohio Constitution Art II by failing to
pay them overtime wages at the statutory rate of one and one-half
times the hourly rate for hours worked in excess of forty hours in
a given week.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant employs a substantial
number of people at its Juvenile Court Division located in
Cleveland, Ohio who are not exempt from the statutory pay
requirements of the FLSA and OMFWSA. Included in this employment
are those employed by the Juvenile Court Division at the Detention
Center as Detention Officers.

The Defendant tracks its Juvenile Court Division hourly employee
hours through its Kronos time-keeping system. This system is a
bio-metric system using an employee's fingerprint to login and
logout. The Kronos system records an employee's hours worked in a
decimal format. The Kronos system records the hours an employee is
scheduled to work in a day, the hours they actually work in a day
and the hours they will compensated for in a given day.

Unit Managers are required to compare an employee's scheduled hours
to an employee's actual hours worked and have the authority to edit
the actual hours worked by an hourly employee in the Kronos system.
Although they are typically scheduled to work forty hours in a
given work week, hourly employees often exceed forty hours worked
in a given week because Defendant requires hourly employees to
continue working until they complete their daily assignments. Yet,
according to the Plaintiffs, Unit Managers routinely edit hourly
employee hours to prevent overtime pay.

The Plaintiffs further allege that pursuant to the Defendant's own
pay policies and applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, an
hourly employee's compensatory time, exchange time, holidays,
vacation time, military time and bereavement leave are to be
counted as hours worked for purposes of computing overtime for
non-exempt hourly employees of the County's Juvenile Court
Division. Despite these policies and agreements, the Defendants
allegedly failed to include such time when computing overtime pay.

The Plaintiffs originally sought to certify a class containing
numerous job classifications within the Juvenile Court Division.
However, in ruling on a Motion for Conditional Certification, the
Court denied certification of the class because the Plaintiffs
offered no evidence that employees other than Detention Officers
suffered FLSA-violating pay policies. It ordered the Plaintiffs to
file an amended class definition and amended Motion for Class
Certification limited to Detention Officers which is now before the
Court.

In their amended Motion for Class Certification, the Plaintiffs
contend class certification is appropriate because they can show
the putative class satisfies all the required elements under Fed R.
Civ. P. 23. On information and belief, they assert the Defendant
employs over one hundred Detention Officers. Moreover, 50 Detention
Officers have opted-in to the collective/class action. All attest
to having worked more than forty hours in a given week during the
class definition period.

The Plaintiffs further allege all Detention Officers suffered the
same violations of the OMFWSA and Ohio Constitution Art. II Section
34 regarding overtime pay and accurate record keeping. Thus, common
questions of law and fact make class certification preferable in
resolving these issues. According to them, these claims are typical
of the class and favor class resolution. Moreover, the Named
Plaintiffs will adequately represent the Class and their claims are
not antagonistic to the Class but are typical of the same.

Predominance and superiority requirements are met because no member
of the Class seeks to pursue their claims individually;
particularly since recovery may be small and not cost effective for
individual members to bring suit individually. Thus, the Plaintiffs
allege class certification is the most appropriate and superior
method for resolving these issues.

The Defendant opposes the amended Motion for Class Certification
because the evidence needed to support each Plaintiff's claim is
highly individualized and would result in over a hundred
mini-trials. Furthermore, according to it, the amended class
definition is confusing, unworkable and represents a fail-safe
class wherein the Court must first determine the merits of each
Plaintiff's claim in order to determine if they are a member of the
class. It contends the relevant evidence shows not only that it has
a clear policy of paying overtime for all hours worked over 40
hours in a given week but shows that it does, in fact, pay overtime
hours on a regular basis.

The Defendant argues the Plaintiffs cannot meet the predominance
requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(3) because their claims are not
subject to generalized proofs. Thus, individual class members would
need to testify that they worked compensable hours "off-the-clock"
in order to prove the Defendant violated Ohio pay laws and the
Court would need to compare the hours recorded by Defendant to the
hours each employee testifies they worked.

For claims that employees were not paid for time spent walking to
their worksite after clocking in, such claims require highly
individualized inquiry since each employee has to walk different
distances to their respective worksites. As for the claim that
Managers regularly deleted hours worked by employees, this too will
require individualized testimony from each class member as to what
hours they believe were deleted. Individualized inquiry will also
be required for claims that employees vacation, sick and
bereavement time off was not calculated in determining overtime
hours worked.

Also, the Plaintiffs are all Union employees and their employment
conditions, including overtime pay violations, are governed by a
collective bargaining agreement. That agreement gives employees the
right to file a grievance for unpaid hours. Thus, superiority is
not met because the Plaintiffs have a superior means of addressing
their claims. The Plaintiffs' class certification motion also fails
because merely alleging that all members suffered a violation of
the same law is insufficient without some common question of law or
fact that is amenable to classwide determination.

Finally, the Defendant alleges the motion for class certification
must fail because the class definition is confusing because the
definition that class members' "whose record of hours worked were
not made, kept or preserved by the County" is nonsensical as even
Plaintiffs admit the Defendant records time worked through its
Kronos system and Defendant produced time sheets and paystubs. In
order to be a class member, a highly individualized inquiry in to
what records are missing for each employee would be required.

The Court asked the parties to brief additional issues recognizing
that these questions would largely be based on documents and
information largely in the Defendant's possession.

Judge Boyko opines that in order for an individual to be a class
member there must first be a determination that they were not paid
overtime at the statutory rate and their pay records were not kept.
Both findings necessarily result in a merits determination on each
individual's claim in order for the individual to be a class member
and therefore, constitutes a fail-safe class, which is proscribed
by law.

Because this issue alone is sufficient to warrant denial of the
Plaintiff's amended Motion for Class Certification,  Judge Boyko
need not address the other issues such as employer approval of
overtime hours or the individual inquiries needed to address the
Plaintiffs' claims.

Therefore, because the Plaintiffs' class definition constitutes a
fail-safe class definition, Judge Boyko denies the Plaintiffs'
Motion. The case will proceed on the Plaintiffs' FLSA collective
action and individual state law claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s4br4nf from Leagle.com.


DCT TEXAS: Smidansky Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Smidansky, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. DCT Texas LLC; Matthew O'Donnell; Mike Pierce, Jr.;
John Doe 1–10; Doe Corporation 1–10, Case No.
5:22-cv-00123-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex., Sept. 21, 2022), is brought
seeking appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief
based on the Defendants' willful failure to compensate the
Plaintiff with minimum wages as required by Texas Minimum Wage Act
("TMWA") and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and unjust
enrichment.

As part of their ownership and operation of the Defendants' Papa
John's stores, Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food to Defendants'
customers. Instead of reimbursing their delivery drivers for the
actual costs of the business use of their vehicles or at the IRS
standard business rate, the Defendants have violated the FLSA and
the TMWA by using a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the
legally-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked.

The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA and Texas
law by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their
delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers
the legally mandated minimum wage for all hours worked. All
delivery drivers at the Defendants' Papa John's stores, including
the Plaintiff, have been subject to the same employment policies
and practices, including policies and practices with respect to
wages and reimbursement for expenses, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began working as a delivery driver for Defendants at
the Houston, Texas location in September 2021 and he remains
employed by the Defendants as of the time of the filing of this
Complaint.

The Defendants operate several Papa John's franchises in
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Phone/Facsimile: 903-596-7100

               - and -

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Laura E. Farmwald, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Phone: 513-202-0710
          Facsimile: 614-340-4620
          Email: abiller@billerkimble.com
                 akimble@billerkimble.com
                 lfarmwald@billerkimble.com


DECKER ELECTRIC: Hicks Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHARLES HICKS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DECKER ELECTRIC CO., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CGC-22-599591, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of San Francisco, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Sept. 9,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-05175 to the proceeding.

The complaint is brought over Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code for: (1) failure to pay all minimum wages; (2) failure to pay
all overtime wages; (3) meal period violations; (4) rest period
violations; (5) wages statement violations; and (6) waiting time
penalties; and (7) unfair competition.

Decker Electric Co. offers commercial, industrial, and
institutional electrical services and solutions.[BN]

Defendant Decker Electric Co. is represented by:

          Joseph R. Lordan, Esq.
          Vincent R. Fisher, Esq.
          Bo Kyung Kim, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          333 Bush Street, Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2872
          Telephone: (415) 362-2580
          Facsimile: (415) 434-0882
          E-mail: Joseph.Lordan@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Vincent.Fisher@lewisbrisbois.com
                  BoKyung.Kim@lewisbrisbois.com

DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Vance Suit to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit
entitled David Vance, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DirecTV, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00179-JPB-JPM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, allege that the Defendant retained AC1 Communications to
sell the Defendant's services. Further, the Plaintiffs assert AC1
purchased a list of leads and phone numbers from a third party and
used that list to make telemarketing calls, but failed to scrub the
list for numbers on the national do-not-call list and called those
numbers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
Plaintiffs do not claim the Defendant itself placed the calls in
question. Rather, the Plaintiffs argue DirecTV is vicariously
liable for AC1's actions.

On April 11, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
following class: All persons within the United States (a) whose
telephone numbers were listed on the Do Not Call Registry, and (b)
who received more than one telemarketing call within any
twelve-month period at any time from AC1, (c) to promote the sale
of DirecTV.

On August 1, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification through an Order entered by Judge Preston
Bailey. The Court determined that class action litigation is the
overwhelmingly superior method to handle these claims.

The appellate case is captioned as David Vance v. DIRECTV, LLC,
Case No. 22-1958, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, filed on September 12, 2022.

Plaintiffs-Appellees DAVID VANCE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

            John William Barrett, Esq.
            Sharon F. Iskra, Esq.
            Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
            BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
            209 Capitol Street
            Charleston, WV 25301
            Telephone: (304) 345-6555

                   - and -

            Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
            BRODERICK & PARANICH, P.C.
            99 High Street
            Boston, MA 02110
            Telephone: (617) 738-7080

                   - and -

            Benjamin James Hogan, Esq.
            BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
            6 Canyon Road
            Morgantown, WV 26508
            Telephone: (304) 594-0087

                   - and -

            Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
            LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
            1 South Avenue
            Natick, MA 01760
            Telephone: (508) 655-1415

                   - and -

            Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
            BRODERICK & PARANICH, P.C.
            99 High Street
            Boston, MA 02110
            Telephone: (508) 221-1510

Defendant-Appellant DIRECTV, LLC is represented by:

            Daniel Rolf Adler, Esq.
            GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
            333 South Grand Avenue
            Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
            Telephone: (213) 229-7634

                   - and -

            Benjamin D. Bright, Esq.
            MAYER BROWN, LLP
            1221 Avenue of the Americas
            New York, NY 10020
            Telephone: (212) 506-2500

                   - and -

            Hans J. Germann, Esq.
            MAYER BROWN, LLP
            71 South Wacker Drive
            Chicago, IL 60606
            Telephone: (312) 701-8792

                   - and -

            Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
            GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
            200 Park Avenue
            New York, NY 10166-0000
            Telephone: (212) 351-4000

                   - and -

            Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Esq.
            GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
            333 South Grand Avenue
            Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
            Telephone: (213) 229-7658

                   - and -

            Daniel E. Jones, Esq.
            MAYER BROWN, LLP
            1999 K. Street, N.W.
            Washington, DC 20006-1101
            Telephone: (202) 263-3860

                   - and -

            Laura Hoffman Lorensen, Esq.
            JACKSON KELLY PLLC
            500 Lee Street, E.
            Charleston, WV 25301
            Telephone: (304) 340-1096

                   - and -

            Pete D. Marketos, Esq.
            REESE MARKETOS LLP
            750 North St. Paul Street
            Dallas, TX 75201
            Telephone: (214) 382-9810

                   - and -

            Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
            MAYER BROWN, LLP
            1999 K. Street, N.W.
            Washington, DC 20006-1101
            Telephone: (202) 263-30328

                   - and -

            Brett Stephen Rosenthal, Esq.
            750 North St. Paul Street
            Dallas, TX 75201-0000
            Telephone: (214) 382-3057

                   - and -

            Kyle J. Steinmetz, Esq.
            MAYER BROWN, LLP
            71 South Wacker Drive
            Chicago, IL 60606
            Telephone: (312) 701-8547

                   - and -

            Danielle M. Waltz, Esq.
            JACKSON KELLY PLLC
            500 Lee Street, E.
            Charleston, WV 25301
            Telephone: (304) 340-1160

                   - and -

            Blair Elizabeth Wessels, Esq.
            JACKSON KELLY PLLC
            500 Lee Street, E.
            Charleston, WV 25301
            Telephone: (304) 340-1000

                   - and -

            Andrew Wirmani, Esq.
            750 North St. Paul Street
            Dallas, TX 75201-0000
            Telephone: (214) 382-9810

DIRT CHEAP: Waddell Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Tamicya Waddell, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals v. DIRT CHEAP, INC. d/b/a THE HIDE OUT CLUB
and HIDEOUT ON 36, INC. d/b/a THE HIDE OUT CLUB, Case No.
2:22-cv-02205-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., Sept. 26, 2022), is brought
arising from Defendants' class-wide misclassification of the
Plaintiff, the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff compensation
as required under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

The Defendants had actual knowledge of all hours the Plaintiff
worked each shift through sign in or tip-in sheets, dance records,
and shift- managers monitoring and supervising the Plaintiff's work
duties performed at or in the Defendants' Hide Out Club throughout
the relevant period. At no time during the relevant period did
Defendants ever pay Plaintiff or any other member of the Class or
Collective any wages for hours that the Plaintiff worked as exotic
dancers at or in Defendants' Hide Out Club each week. The
Defendants totally failed to pay wages or any kind of compensation
to the Plaintiff for work duties performed as exotic dancers at or
in Defendants' Hide Out Club, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as an exotic dancer by the Defendants at
Defendants' Hide Out Club in Tuscola, Illinois, during the period
of about January 2013 through December 2021.

Dirt Cheap, Inc. is a corporation, formed in the State of Illinois,
that operates as the Hide Out Gentlemen's Club, featuring female
exotic dancers, operating continuously in Tuscola, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Phone: (301) 587-9373
          Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com

               - and -

          Athena M. Herman, Esq.
          300 N.E. Perry Avenue
          Peoria, IL 61603
          Phone: (309) 966-0248
          Fax: (309) 674-7989
          Email: athena@athenahermanlaw.com


DOLE PACKAGED: Ill. Fed. Ct. Adopts Scheduling, Discovery Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE JACKSON,
Individually and on Behalf of all other similarly-situated Citizens
of Illinois and the United States, v. DOLE PACKAGED FOODS, LLC,
Case No. 3:22-cv-01448-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. David W. Dugan
entered an order adopting joint report and proposed scheduling and
discovery order.

The Court said, "Having reviewed the attached Joint Report of the
Parties and finding that the parties have complied with the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Southern
District of Illinois Local Rule 16.2(a), the Court hereby approves
and enters the same. Depositions upon oral examination,
interrogatories, requests for documents, and answers and responses
thereto shall not be filed unless on order of the Court.
Disclosures or discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a) are to be filed with the Court only to the extent required by
the final pretrial order, other Court order, or if a dispute arises
over the disclosure or discovery and the matter has been set for
briefing."

The parties should note that they may, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 29, modify discovery dates set in the Joint Report
by written stipulation, except that they may not modify a date if
such modification would impact:

   (1) the date of any court appearance,

   (2) the deadline for completing the mandatory mediation
       session or the mandatory mediation process (if
       applicable),

   (3) the deadline for completing all discovery, or

   (4) the deadline for filing dispositive motions, the Court
       adds

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SAvJXu at no extra charge.[CC]

DOLLAR TREE: Howard Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
DARYL HOWARD, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Collective
Class Members, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04874 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 9, 2022) is brought
against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, to recover unpaid wages.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated current and former employees were subject to Dollar Tree's
policies and regularly worked over 40 hours per week but were not
fully paid their overtime hours at one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay.

Mr. Howard has worked for Dollar Tree for approximately 10 years as
a security guard.

Dollar Tree operates discount variety retail stores in two
segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glenn R. Gaffney, Esq.
          GAFFNEY & GAFFNEY, P.C.
          1771 Bloomingdale Road
          Glendale Heights, IL 60139
          Telephone: (630) 462-1200
          E-mail: glenn@gaffneylawpc.com


DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Driver Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelli Salazar, Wayne
Carpenter, Rodney Lopez, and Gregory Hanna, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated individuals, v. Driver Provider
Phoenix, LLC, et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-05760-SMB (D. Ariz.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying Count II (violation of the Arizona Wage Act,
      and Count III (violation of the Arizona Minimum Wage Act
      as class action claims under Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23;

   2. appointing Named Plaintiffs as class representatives;

   3. appointing Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C as Class Counsel;

   4. requiring the Defendants to produce contact and damages-
      related information for all Rule 23 Class members; and

   5. providing the parties an opportunity to meet and confer to
      submit for the Court's approval a notice to be issued to
      the Rule 23 Class.

In addition to the FLSA claims alleged as a collective action, the
Plaintiffs also allege the Defendants violated (and continue to
violate) the Arizona Wage Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act by:

  -- failing to timely pay their employee chauffeurs ("Drivers")
     for all hours worked; failing to pay Drivers required
     minimum wages;

  -- failing to pay Drivers required overtime wages for work in
     excess of 40 hours per week; and

  -- failing to maintain accurate contemporaneous records of all
     hours worked by the Drivers.

The Plaintiffs request certification of a Rule 23 Class that
includes the following:

   "All current and former employees of The Driver Provider who
   performed chauffeur services in Arizona at any time from
   December 6, 2016 to the present;"

   Excluded from the class are all owners, managers,
   supervisors, dispatchers, or other employees whose primary
   job responsibilities were not the provision of chauffeur
   services.

The Defendants are privately owned companies operating as "The
Driver Provider" and its owners and officers. The Defendants
provide chauffeured transportation services in Arizona, Utah, and
Wyoming.

The Plaintiffs allege that for at least three years prior to the
filing of this action, the Defendants knowingly and willfully
violated both the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (Count I) and
Arizona law (Counts II and III).

The Court certified a collective action under the FLSA in March
2021 consisting of:

   "All current and former employees of The Driver Provider who
   performed chauffeur services at any time from December 6,
   2016 to the date of receipt of [the] Notice."

The Defendants include The Driver Provider Leasing, LLC; Innovative
Transportation Solutions of Sedona, LLC; Innovative Transportation
Solutions of Tucson, LLC; Innovative Transportation Solutions, Inc.
(Arizona); Innovative Transportation Solutions, Inc. (Utah);
Innovative Transportation Solutions, LLC; Jason Kaplan; Kendra
Kaplan; Stephen Kaplan and Barbara Kaplan, husband and wife; Barry
Gross and Jane Doe Gross, husband and wife; and Does 1-10.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SBLvRy
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Susan Martin, Esq.
          Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
          Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
          Michael M. Licata, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
          4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (602) 240-6900
          Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
          E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com
                  dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
                  jkroll@martinbonnett.com
                  mlicata@martinbonnett.com

EIGHT ORANGES: Mangahas Seeks Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSY MANGAHAS, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. EIGHT ORANGES INC.
DBA THE BAO; CHIBAOLA, INC. DBA ULUH; JOANNE HONG BAO,
individually, and RICHARD LAM, individually, Case No.
1:22-cv-04150-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting conditional class certification, court-authorized
notice, and expedited discovery, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), as well as such other and
further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 16,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rv03BT
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          Katherine K. Bonilla
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30 th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375


ELITE INSURANCE: Larrabee Seeks Sales Agents' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSH LARRABEE, Plaintiff v. ELITE INSURANCE PARTNERS LLC and JAGGER
ESCH, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-02089 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 8, 2022)
is a class action arising from the Defendants' alleged conduct of
improperly and willfully withholding and refusing to pay Plaintiff
overtime wages and premiums for overtime hours worked in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Larrabee worked as a Medicare Insurance Sales Agent from
August 2020 until June 2022.

Elite Insurance Partners LLC is a health insurance agency based in
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6916 W. Linebaugh Ave #101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

ELITE INSURANCE: Underpays Insurance Sales Agents, Gatch Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL GATCH, Plaintiff v. ELITE INSURANCE PARTNERS LLC and JAGGER
ESCH, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-02090 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 8, 2022)
is a class action arising from the Defendants' alleged conduct of
improperly and willfully withholding and refusing to pay Plaintiff
overtime wages and premiums for overtime hours worked in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Gatch worked as a Medicare Insurance Sales Agent from February
2020 until May 2021.

Elite Insurance Partners LLC is a health insurance agency based in
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6916 W. Linebaugh Ave #101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

ELITE INSURANCE: Underpays Insurance Sales Agents, Guthrie Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE GUTHRIE, Plaintiff v. ELITE INSURANCE PARTNERS LLC and JAGGER
ESCH, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-02091 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 8, 2022)
is a class action arising from the Defendants' alleged conduct of
improperly and willfully withholding and refusing to pay Plaintiff
overtime wages and premiums for overtime hours worked in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Guthrie worked as a Medicare Insurance Sales Agent from
May 2021 until April 2022.

Elite Insurance Partners LLC is a health insurance agency based in
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6916 W. Linebaugh Ave #101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

ENTERPRISE LEASING: Class Settlement in Benson Suit Wins Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELVA BENSON, Plaintiff v. ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY
OF ORLANDO, LLC; and ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 6:20-cv-891-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.), Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr., of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division, issues a Final Approval Order:

   a. granting the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final
      Approval of the Parties' Class Action Settlement; and

   b. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
      Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

Before the Court are the Plaintiff's Fee Motion; the Plaintiff's
Settlement Motion; and the Report and Recommendation of Independent
Counsel (R&R).

In 2020, the Defendants fired the Plaintiff and thousands of other
employees because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Receiving little
advanced notice of her termination, the Plaintiff filed a putative
class action Complaint against the Defendants under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The Court certified the class and the parties then settled and
moved for preliminary approval of the settlement. It preliminarily
approved the Agreement and set a fairness hearing for final
approval. After the parties followed the approved notice plan, the
Plaintiff moved unopposed for final approval of the Agreement and
attorney's fees and costs.

At the fairness hearing, the Court analyzed whether the Agreement
was fair and reasonable but it was primarily concerned with the
requested fee. Under the Agreement, the maximum Defendants must pay
is $425,000, which includes the class counsel's attorney's fees.
Given that single sum, the class counsel's request for attorney's
fees gave the Court great pause, as it sought almost 60% of the
settlement fund. Because the attorney's fees are deducted from the
total amount the Defendants would pay under the Agreement, the
Court was concerned that the Agreement constituted a common fund or
a constructive common fund. It considered the Settlement and Fee
Motions and allowed supplemental briefing on the fee issue.

After reviewing the subsequent briefing, the Court appointed Jill
Schwartz, Esq.1 as the Independent Counsel to represent the
interests of the class and tasked her with advising the Court as to
a reasonable fee. After investigating, the Independent Counsel then
recommended the Court finds this arrangement is akin to a
constructive common fund and find the requested fee unreasonably
high. The Court allowed the parties to respond to the independent
counsel report, but they declined.

First, Judge Dalton finds that the Agreement treats all members
identically, there has been no opposition, and the parties settled
well into discovery and shortly after the Court certified the
class, so the record was sufficiently developed. So the Agreement
is fair, reasonable, adequate, and final approval is appropriate.

Next, the counsel moves for an award of $250,000, which is to be
deducted from the total amount that the Defendants must pay:
$425,000. Judge Dalton finds this is a common-fund case and that
the requested award is unreasonable. He says this is essentially a
common fund case as the attorney's fees are paid by the client --
or at the very least, it is a constructive common fund as the fee
and the settlement were negotiated together.

Lastly, given the common fund classification, a fee award of 60% of
the class fund is unreasonable. The Independent Counsel agrees with
the Court's skepticism of the reasonableness of the fee award and
submits that awarding the class counsel 332153% of the settlement
fund in fees plus $7,185.40 in costs is more appropriate.

Judge Dalton agrees. He adopts the Independent Counsel's
recommendation and finds that an award of 332153% of the settlement
fund is reasonable including that the retainer agreement for the
class counsel contemplated 332153% of the settlement fund as an
option for attorney's fees. The class counsel spent nearly 1.5
years litigating the case, which also involved appeals, and they
took the case on a contingency basis even though it was complex,
time-consuming, and had relatively novel issues such as dealing
with the economic repercussions of the pandemic. So Judge Dalton
will grant the Fee Motion in part and awards the class counsel
$141,666.67 in attorney's fees plus $7,185.40 in costs.

Accordingly, Judge Dalton adopts, confirms, and makes in part of
his Order the R&R in its entirety. He grants the Plaintiff's
Settlement Motion.

Judge Dalton grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's Fee
Motion: The Motion is granted in that the class counsel is awarded
$141,666.67 in attorney's fees and $7,185.40 in costs. In all other
respects, the Motion is denied.

The Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Agreement. All terms used will have the same meaning as set forth
in the Agreement.

Judge Dalton finally approves the Agreement as fair, reasonable,
and adequate.

Judge Dalton certifies the following class: "All Enterprise
employees who worked at or reported to Enterprise facilities in the
United States and were terminated without cause on or about April
24, 2020, or within 14 days of April 24, 2020, or in anticipation
of, or as the foreseeable consequence of, the mass layoff or plant
closing ordered on or about April 24, 2020, and who are affected
employees, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 2101(a)(5) who
did not sign a severance agreement with Enterprise, are not subject
to an arbitration agreement, and who do not file a timely request
to opt-out of the class.

These individuals are excluded from the settlement class: Shana S.
Nalls and Terri P. Brewer.

Judge Dalton designates Plaintiff Elva Benson as the Class
Representative and appoints Luis A. Cabassa and Brandon J. Hill of
Wentzel Fenton & Cabassa, P.A. as the class counsel.

Judge Dalton approves, as to form, content, and procedure, the
Notice in the Agreement and its exhibits. The parties will adhere
to the deadlines set forth.

The parties and the Settlement Administrator are directed to
implement the Agreement in accordance with its terms and
provisions.

The action is dismissed with prejudice.

The Court retains jurisdiction over the action, the parties, the
class counsel, and the settlement class to enforce the Agreement
and preside over issues arising from distributing the settlement
claims.

By Oct. 4, 2022, as contemplated by the Agreement, the parties are
directed to meet confer in good faith to modify the Agreement in
terms of the fee award and redistribute the remaining money back
into the settlement fund under the Order and file a joint notice
with the Court to this effect.

The Clerk is directed to close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2022 Final Approval Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/mw8ksku6 from Leagle.com.


ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Coria Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Coria, individually and as an aggrieved employee and Private
Attorney General Act, Plaintiff v. Environmental Assessment
Services & Education of California, a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV29394
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 9, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for California Labor Code violations, unfair
business practices, and civil penalties stemming from Defendants'
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to
pay minimum wage, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide
accurate, itemized wage statements, failure to maintain accurate
time and payroll records, and failure to reimburse necessary
business-related expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants during the relevant
time period up until the time of his termination on June 1, 2022.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in the position of "Home Energy
Specialist."

Environmental Assessment Services & Education of California is a
company that provides installation and repair services to make
homes more energy-efficient.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zack I. Domb, Esq.
          Devin Rauchwerger, Esq.
          DOMB & RAUCHWERGER LLP
          1055 East Colorado Blvd., Fifth Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (213) 537-9225
          E-mail: zack@dombrauchwerger.com
                  devin@dombrauchwerger.com

ESTATES LLC: Souther Appeals Atty. Fees & Costs Ruling to 4th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN SOUTHER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs in
the lawsuit entitled Brian Williams, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The
Estates LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01076-CCE-JLW, in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated homeowners and property owners, bring this class action
suit against the Defendants for engaging in a bid-rigging scheme in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Plaintiffs
want to enjoin the Defendants and their co-conspirators, including
their directors, officers, employees, agents and all other persons
acting or claiming to act on their behalf, from selling any
property purchased at a foreclosure sale in North Carolina, from
bidding at any foreclosure sale in North Carolina, and from
engaging in any other contract, combination, or conspiracy having a
similar purpose or effect.

The Plaintiffs lost their homes and properties through the Estates'
illegal bidding practices or otherwise were deprived of proceeds in
excess of the foreclosed debt because when properties are sold at
foreclosure auctions, the proceeds are used to pay off the mortgage
and other debt attached to the property, with any remaining
proceeds paid to the homeowner.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs suffered serious harm, losing
valuable equity in their homes if not their homes themselves,
because of Defendants' anti-competitive behavior, which distorted
the process in North Carolina foreclosure sales. The Defendants
unfairly and unjustly profited from their wrongdoing, adds the
complaint.

On April 22, 2021, the Court denied the plaintiffs' second motion
to certify class, and ordered the parties to meet, confer, and file
a joint submission identifying which Defendants are unrelated to
the claims of the named Plaintiffs and the best mechanism for
dismissing the claims against them.

On June 2, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part a
request for permanent injunction filed by the Plaintiffs.

Judge Catherine C. Eagles also entered a memorandum opinion and
order August 10, 2022,  granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a
charging order. However, the motion was denied as to Avirta's
purported interest in Celona, LLC, and Citadel Management of North
Carolina, LLC, and Mr. Brooksby's purported interest in The
Estates, Timbra, Avirta, King Family Enterprises and the 80 to 100
equity share LLCs.

On July 29, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys' fees
and costs.

On September 9, 2022, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees and costs, and ordered the Defendants to pay the
plaintiffs' attorneys $399,270. From the fee requested totaling of
$431,270, the Court subtracted 80 hours of attorney time at
$400/hour for class certification time. The Court ruled that a fee
award of $399,270 is reasonable and fairly compensates the
Plaintiffs' counsel for time spent successfully pursuing the
Plaintiffs' claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Brian Williams v. Carolyn
Souther, Case No. 22-1965, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 13, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees BRIAN C. WILLIAMS, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Dhamian Blue, Esq.
            BLUE LLP
            205 Fayetteville Street
            Raleigh, NC 27601
            Telephone: (919) 833-1931

                   - and -

            Jonathan Teal Dickerson, Esq.
            J.C. WHITE LAW GROUP, PLLC
            100 Europa Drive
            Chapel Hill, NC 27517
            Telephone: (919) 794-6725

                   - and -

            James C. White, Esq.
            J.C. WHITE LAW GROUP, PLLC
            100 Europa Drive
            Chapel Hill, NC 27517
            Telephone: (919) 246-4676

Defendants-Appellants CAROLYN SOUTHER, et al., are represented by:

            Robert E. Culver, Esq.
            CULVER LAW FIRM
            575 King Street
            Charleston, SC 29403
            Telephone: (843) 853-9816

EXECUPHARM INC: Court Issues Ruling in Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristal Kuykendall, writing for Campus Technology, reports that as
ransomware attacks targeting the education sector grab more
headlines every week, a new ruling from a federal appeals court has
made it easier for people whose data is breached and leaked on the
dark web to sue the organizations where the data was compromised.

The ruling from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit means
that the requirement for a data breach plaintiff to have suffered
"actual or imminent harm" is shifting along with the fast-changing
landscape of cybersecurity and data privacy, said attorney Harris
S. Freier, partner at Genova Burns and head of the firm's Privacy
and Cybersecurity Practice.

Freier, whose litigation specialties include employment and trade
secret cases as well as data privacy law, wrote about the Third
Circuit decision in a recent blog post.

Earlier this month, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' three-judge
panel unanimously reinstated a putative class-action suit against a
company that suffered a ransomware attack, leading to her sensitive
information being released onto the dark web.

Lead plaintiff Jennifer Clemens, a former employee of ExecuPharm
based in Massachusetts, sued after the company experienced a
ransomware attack and the data stored on its servers was published
on the dark web, according to court documents.

Notably, Clemens did not suffer identity theft following the
breach. After the company notified employees of the breach, Clemens
"took swift action by reviewing her financial records and credit
reports, switching banks and purchasing credit monitoring
services," according to court documents summarized by Freier.

In February 2021, the District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania dismissed her case for lack of standing, due to the
"speculative nature" of the injuries to the employees. But the
decision issued on Sept. 2, 2022, by the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for
consideration on the merits -- giving the potential class of
plaintiffs a new chance for relief and putting organizations that
store PII data on notice, Freier explained.

The nature of the cyberattack targeting the company is spelled out
in the appellate court ruling: "A hacking group known as CLOP
accessed ExecuPharm's servers through a phishing attack in March
2020, stealing sensitive information pertaining to current and
former employees, including Clemens. Specifically, the stolen
information contained Social Security numbers, dates of birth, full
names, home addresses, taxpayer identification numbers, banking
information, credit card numbers, driver's license numbers,
sensitive tax forms, and passport numbers. In addition to
exfiltrating the data, CLOP installed malware to encrypt the data
stored on ExecuPharm's servers. Then, CLOP held the decryption
tools for ransom, threatening to release the information if
ExecuPharm did not pay the ransom. Either because ExecuPharm
refused to pay or for nefarious reasons unknown, the hackers made
good on their threat and posted the data on underground websites
located on the dark web."

Clemens sued under the Class Action Fairness Act, with claims for
negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and breach
of confidence.

The Third Court Court of Appeals clarified that an injury can be
"imminent" in order to qualify for standing, and does not need to
have actually taken place at the time of suit being filed. Based on
precedent in recent data breaches, the Court of Appeals "determined
that the substantial risk of future injury qualifies for standing
based on imminence, especially in the event of an intentional,
targeted attack by a hacking group," Freier wrote in his case
analysis. [GN]

FEIN & SUCH: Parties Seek Final Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOCELYN PEREZ, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FEIN, SUCH, KAHN &
SHEPARD, P.C; THE ACCOUNTS RETRIVEABLE SYSTEM INC. d/b/a ARS, LLC.;
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-03809-AME (D.N.J.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order certifying the case to
proceed as a class action for settlement purposes and granting
final approval of the Parties' class settlement agreement.

Fein & Such operates as a law firm.

A copy of the Parties' joint motion dated Sept. 16, 2022 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dOSqYT at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Wolf, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com

The Defendants are represented by

          Gregg Tabakin, Esq.
          FEIN, SUCH, KAHN & SHEPARD, P.C.
          7 Century Drive, Suite 201
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Telephone: (973) 867-4507
          E-mail: gtabakin@fskslaw.com



FIDELITY BROKERAGE: Balanzar Balks at Voice Print Recording
-----------------------------------------------------------
EMIR BALANZAR and CECELIA LAHR, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIDELITY BROKERAGE
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01372-GPC-BGS (S.D.
Cal., Sept. 11, 2022) alleges that the Defendant disregards
Plaintiffs and other California residents' statutorily protected
privacy rights and unlawfully examines or records their voices in
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Defendant utilizes a system that enables it to examine the
voice of anyone that calls it to determine the truth or falsity of
the callers' statements. The software combines audio, voice, and
artificial intelligence technologies to compare the callers' voices
to a comprehensive database of recordings and metrics.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated (and
continues to violate) CIPA because it uses a system which examines
or records California residents' "voice prints or voice stress
patterns . . . to determine the truth or falsity of statements"
without their express written consent. Thus, the Plaintiffs seek to
put an end to its unlawful use, examination, and recording of
Plaintiffs' and putative Class members' biometric voice prints,
says the suit.

Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC provides financial brokerage
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (866) 219-3343
          E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429    
          E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com

FIRST TRANSIT: California District Court Stays Bellone Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTORIA BELLONE, et al., Plaintiffs v. FIRST TRANSIT,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09617-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay, and stays the case.

The Plaintiffs allege that they are former hourly, non-exempt
employees of First Transit. They filed the action on Sept. 15, 2021
in state court on behalf of themselves and "all persons who are or
were employed by the Defendants as hourly paid, non-exempt
employees in the State of California at any time prior to the
filing of this action as tolled by Emergency Rule 9 through
resolution or trial of the matter."

The Plaintiffs allege that the "Defendants implemented uniform
policies and practices that deprived the Plaintiffs and the Class
Members of earned wages, including minimum wages; straight time
wages; overtime wages; premium wages; lawful meal and/or rest
breaks; reimbursement for necessary expenses; and timely payment of
wages."

The Plaintiffs allege causes of action for (1) failure to pay
minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime owed; (3) failure to
provide lawful meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit
rest periods; (5) failure to timely pay wages during employment;
(6) failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from
employment; (7) failure to reimburse necessary expenses; (8)
knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage
statement provisions; and (9) violation of the unfair competition
law, California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.

At the time the Plaintiffs filed their case, two other cases with
similar allegations were pending in the Central District of
California. Cuellar v. First Transit, Inc., Case No.
8:20-cv-01075-JWH-JDE, was filed on Jan. 17, 2020 and is a proposed
class action on behalf of "[a]ll of Defendant's current and former
hourly drivers who worked for Defendant in California, during the
four years before the filing of the Complaint through the time of
class certification," with various subclasses. The plaintiffs in
Cuellar allege causes of action for (1) failure to provide meal
periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay
wages; (4) failure to timely pay wages at termination/separation;
(5) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (6) unfair
business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.; and (7) for penalties
pursuant to PAGA. A review of the case's docket shows that a notice
of settlement was filed on Aug. 15, 2022, the parties anticipate
filing a motion for preliminary approval within 60 days of that
date, and the court set a status conference for Oct. 28, 2022.

The second case, Azimihashemi v. First Transit, Inc., et al., Case
No. 8:21-cv-00780-JWH-JDE, was filed on Feb. 24, 2021.  It is also
a proposed class action, and brings claims on behalf of two major
subclasses.

The most pertinent is: SUBCLASS B: All current and former
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants
within the State of California at any time during the period from
Feb. 24, 2017 to final judgment and who reside in California who
held positions that were not drivers, or persons who held job
titles and performed job duties that were not similar to the job
titles and job duties of drivers.

On behalf of the "Non-Driver Subclass," the operative complaint
alleges causes of action for (1) unpaid wages and overtime; (2)
meal period violations and unpaid premium pay; (3) rest period
violations and unpaid premium pay; (4) unpaid minimum wages and for
liquidated damages; (5) failure to timely pay wages upon
separation; (6) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (7)
inaccurate wage statements; (8) unreimbursed expenses; and (9)
unfair business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. A review of the case's
docket shows that motions for class certification are due on Jan.
27, 2023, and a hearing on the motion is set for June 16, 2023.

The Defendant urges the Court to dismiss or stay this action under
the first-to-file rule. The first-to-file rule is a "generally
recognized doctrine of federal comity," and "provides that where
substantially identical actions are proceeding in different courts,
the court of the later-filed action should defer to the
jurisdiction of the court of the first-filed action by either
dismissing, staying, or transferring the later-filed suit." The
rule is intended to promote efficiency, and the Ninth Circuit has
cautioned that it "should not be disregarded lightly." "When
applying the first-to-file rule, courts should be driven to
maximize 'economy, consistency, and comity.'" The first-to-file
rule requires analysis of three factors: Chronology of the
lawsuits, similarity of the parties, and similarity of the issues.

Judge Gilliam holds that the first factor, chronology of the
lawsuits, favors applying the first-to-file rule. Both the Cuellar
and Azimihashemi actions were filed months before Bellone. The
Plaintiffs argue that the Cuellar and Azimihashemi actions are not
relevant to the case until a class is certified, but that claim
conflicts with the first-to-file rule and the Plaintiff cites no
authority for it.

Next, the class proposed in Bellone is subsumed by the combined
classes proposed in Cuellar and Azimihashemi. Cuellar is brought on
behalf of current and former hourly drivers; Azimihashemi Subclass
B consists of current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt
employees other than drivers; and Bellone proposes a class of "all
persons who are or were employed as hourly paid, non-exempt
employees." All the classes are limited geographically to the state
of California and cover similar time periods -- anyone who works or
worked for the Defendant at any point starting from four years
prior to the filing of each action through trial. Cuellar and
Azimihashemi were filed before Bellone, so their four-year starting
point is earlier, and none of the cases have gone to trial yet.
Judge Gilliam therefore finds that there is substantial similarity
of parties.

Judge Gilliam next finds that the three cases are based on the same
underlying premise: The Defendants violated state laws by failing
to properly compute and pay wages, provide meal and rest breaks,
issue correct wage statements, and pay money owed at the time of
separation. He says, the allegations in Bellone do not need to be
identical to those in Cuellar and Azimihashemi, and finds that
there is substantial overlap between the suits.

Given the analysis of the described factors, Judge Gilliam
concludes that judicial economy, consistency, and comity warrant
applying the first-to-file rule. The Defendant argues that the
claims should be dismissed, while the Plaintiffs argue that the
case should not be dismissed or stayed, and that at a minimum they
should be given leave to amend. Because classes have not yet been
certified in the other ongoing cases, Judge Gilliam finds that
staying the case rather than dismissing it is appropriate.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Gilliam grants in part and denies
in part the Defendant's motion, and orders the case stayed. He also
grants the Defendant's request for judicial notice.

The parties are directed to file a joint status report regarding
the status of the Cuellar and Azimihashemi actions 120 days from
the date of this order and every 120 days thereafter unless
otherwise ordered. The parties are also directed to jointly notify
the Court within 48 hours of the entry of judgment in either case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p9dte7y from Leagle.com.


FLORIDA: Faces Alianza Suit Over Mistreatment of Immigrants
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALIANZA AMERICAS, YANET DOE, PABLO DOE, and JESUS DOE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RONALD
DESANTIS, Governor of Florida, in his official and personal
capacities; JARED W. PERDUE, Secretary of the Florida Department of
Transportation, in his official and personal capacities; STATE OF
FLORIDA; THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; DOES #1-5,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-11550 (D. Mass., September 20, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S. Code, Supremacy Clause, and the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021/Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery
Fund, and for false imprisonment, fraud/deceit, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of
emotional distress.

According to the complaint, the Defendants lured the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated immigrants from Venezuela with false promises
and false representations in order to convince them to be
transported to other states. The Defendants procured and paid
$615,000 for private chartered planes, transported the Plaintiffs
and Class members to the aircrafts, and told them they were flying
to Boston or Washington, D.C., which was completely false. Instead,
the chartered airplanes dropped them off on Martha's Vineyard in
the evening, with no food, water or shelter. The Plaintiffs and
Class members, 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 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, says the suit.

Alianza Americas is a transnational organization rooted in Latino
immigrant communities in the United States.

The Florida Department of Transportation is an agency of the State
of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Oren Sellstrom, Esq.
         Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Esq.
         Jacob Love, Esq.
         Mirian Albert, Esq.
         LAWYERS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
         61 Batterymarch Street, 5th Floor
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 482-1145
         E-mail: osellstrom@lawyersforcivilrights.org

FLOWERS FOODS: Fails to Properly Pay Distributors, Brock Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELO BROCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC.; FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC;
and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF DENVER, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-02413 (D. Colo., September 19, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay appropriate minimum wages
and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a distributor from
2016 through the present.

Flowers Foods, Inc. is a manufacturer and seller of bakery goods,
with its principal place of business in Thomasville, Georgia.

Flowers Bakeries, LLC is a subsidiary of Flowers Foods, Inc., with
its principal place of business in Thomasville, Georgia.

Flowers Baking Co. of Denver, LLC is a subsidiary of Flowers Foods,
Inc., doing business in Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Wadi Muhaisen, Esq.
         MUHAISEN & MUHAISEN, LLC
         1225 17th Street, Suite 2520
         Denver, CO 80202
         Telephone: (303) 872-0084
         Facsimile: (303) 558-4128
         E-mail: wadi@muhaisenlaw.com

FLRISH INC: Calhoun Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIA CALHOUN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLRISH, INC., a
California corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-08212-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff move the Court for class certification.

The Plaintiff seeks class certification pursuant to Rule 23(a),
(b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
Plaintiff makes this motion on the ground that the numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation
requirements of Rule 23(a) are met. The Plaintiff also makes this
motion on the ground that questions of law and fact common to the
Class predominate over any questions affecting individual members,
and a class action is the superior method for adjudicating the
dispute.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          Christopher E. Stiner, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com
                  cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Avi Kaufman, Esq.
          Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN, P.A.
          237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
                  rachel@kaufmanpa.com

FLUOR FLATIRON: Corral-Bey Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DIYARI CORRAL-BEY, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLUOR FLATIRON
BALFOUR BEATTY DRAGADOS DBJV (dba LINXS), a corporate entity of
unknown form, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22STCV20310, was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Sept. 23, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-06903 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint, which was brought on behalf of himself
and others allegedly similarly situated, alleges causes of action
for: (1) failure to reimburse expenses pursuant to California Labor
Code; (2) violation of the Business & Professions Code; and (3) for
penalties pursuant to Labor Code.

Fluor Flatiron Balfour Beatty Dragados DBJV provides construction
services.[BN]

Defendant Fluor Flatiron Balfour Beatty Dragados DBJV is
represented by:

          Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq.
          Kelly N. Oki, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 330-4500
          Facsimile: (213) 330-4501  
          E-mail: lgiamela@fisherphillips.com
                  koki@fisherphillips.com

FLUTTER HABIT: Brito Sues Over Unwanted Telephonic Sales Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLUTTER HABIT, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
157703601 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cty.,
September 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of sending
telephonic sales calls in an attempt to promote its goods and
services to the telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers without obtaining their prior express written
consent.

Flutter Habit, LLC is a limited liability company doing business in
Florida. [BN]

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

FORD MOTOR: Court Tosses Thornburg Class Cert Bid w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OTTO E. THORNBURG, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01025-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      without prejudice because the class definition is too
      broad and the Plaintiff is not an adequate class
      representative; and

   2. denying as moot Ford's motions to strike Plaintiff's
      preliminary expert reports.

The Court said, "Because the Plaintiff's proposed class definition
is too broad and Plaintiff has not met the adequacy and typicality
requirements of Rule 23(a), the Court need not consider whether the
proposed class has met the requirements of Rule 23(b)."

The Plaintiff Otto E. Thornburg alleges that the Ford Motor has
released noxious odors from its automotive facility onto his
property and those of neighboring residents, interfering with their
ability to use and enjoy their homes and adversely impacting
property values, giving rise to claims of nuisance and negligence.

He moves for certification of a class of plaintiffs consisting of:

   "All owner/occupants and renters of residential property
   residing within two (2) miles of the Facility’s property
   boundary."

Ford operates a facility involving industrial assembly and body
painting for certain automobiles on a 1,269-acre site in the
Village of Claycomo in Clay County. Adjacent to the main assembly
plant, the Defendant also operates and manages the Ford Kansas City
Truck Paint facility.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's painting and curing process
involves the use of potent, industrial-strength solvent-based
paints that, when applied to vehicles, produce a of high amount of
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), including hydrocarbons, ketones,
esters, alcohols, and glycol ether.

The Plaintiff alleges that, unlike many other automakers and
automotive operations, Defendant exclusively utilizes solvent-based
paints, which contain and produce higher quantities of VOCs than
other available paints, such as water-based paints. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Facility emits noxious odors onto neighboring
residential properties.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3foic6U at no extra charge.[CC]

FRONT LINE: Parties File Amended Bid for Conditional Cert
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shane Chaffer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Front Line EMS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00181-DCN (D. Idaho), the
Parties file an amended agreed motion for conditional certification
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) solely to amend the
definition of the Putative Collective Members, as previously
defined in the Parties' Agreed Motion for Conditional
Certification.

The Parties agree to conditional certification of the following
collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. setion 216(b):

   "Current and former Paramedics and EMTs employed by Front
    Line EMS, LLC during the three years prior to the Court's
    Order granting the Parties' Amended Agreed Motion for
    Conditional Certification and who were compensated based on
    the pay practice at issue in the lawsuit."

A copy of the Parties motion dated Sept. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rj2pJo at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net

               - and -

          Emily A. MacMaster, Esq.
          MACMASTER LAW, PLLC
          Idaho State Bar No. 6449
          300 W. Main Street, Suite 202
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 608-2235
          E-mail: emacmaster07@gmail.com
                  emily@macmasterlaw.com

The Defendant Idaho Employment Lawyers, PLLC is represented by:

          Mark D. Temple, Esq.
          Peter J. Stuhldreher, Esq.
          Emil M. Sadykhov, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          811 Main Street, Suite 1100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 751-1600
          Facsimile: (713) 751-1717
          E-mail: mtemple@bakerlaw.com
                  pstuhldreher@bakerlaw.com
                  esadykhov@bakerlaw.com

The Defendant Front Line EMS, LLC is represented by:

          Jennifer M. Walrath, Esq.
          Benjamin T. Cramer, Esq.
          1112 W. Main Street, Suite 105
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 901-3912
          Facsimile: (208) 534-7445
          E-mail: jwalrath@idemploymentlawyers.com
                  bcramer@idemploymentlawyers.com

FRONT LINE: Parties File Bid for FLSA Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shane Chaffer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Front Line EMS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00181-DCN (D. Idaho), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order the Parties file an
agreed motion for conditional certification under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Parties agree to conditional certification of the following
collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):

  -- Current and former Paramedics employed by Front Line EMS,
     LLC during the years prior to the Court’s Order granting
     conditional certification and who were compensated based on
     the pay practice at issue in the lawsuit (the Putative
     Collective Members).

By agreeing to conditional certification, the Defendant does not
waive its right to argue that the above collective action should be
decertified, to argue that this lawsuit is not properly maintained
as a collective action, and/or to advance any defenses that it may
have to the substantive claims in this lawsuit.

Front Line offers emergency medical care services, rapid disaster
response, remote area standby services, and deployments.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 9,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SsRTe6
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily A. MacMaster, Esq.
          MACMASTER LAW, PLLC
          300 W. Main Street, Suite 202
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 608-2235
          E-mail: emacmaster07@gmail.com
                  emily@macmasterlaw.com

                - and -

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1100
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark D. Temple, Esq.
          Peter J. Stuhldreher, Esq.
          Emil M. Sadykhov, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          811 Main Street, Suite 1100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 751-1600
          Facsimile: (713) 751-1717
          E-mail: mtemple@bakerlaw.com
                  pstuhldreher@bakerlaw.com
                  esadykhov@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer M. Walrath, Esq.
          Benjamin T. Cramer
          IDAHO EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, PLLC
          1112 W. Main Street, Suite 105
          Boise, IDdaho 83702
          Telephone: (208) 901-3912
          Facsimile: (208) 534-7445
          E-mail: jwalrath@idemploymentlawyers.com
                  bcramer@idemploymentlawyers.com

FULGENT GENETICS: Pugley Sues Over 17.29% Decline of Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PUGLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FULGENT GENETICS, INC., MING HSIEH, and PAUL
KIM, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-06764 (C.D. Cal., September 20,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Fulgent's business, operations,
and compliance policies with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) in order to trade Fulgent securities at
artificially inflated prices between March 22, 2019 and August 4,
2022. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
Fulgent 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 and Stark Law; (ii)
accordingly, Fulgent was likely to become subject to enhanced legal
and regulatory scrutiny; (iii) Fulgent's revenues, to the extent
they were derived from the foregoing unlawful conduct, were
unsustainable; (iv) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to
subject the company to significant financial and/or reputational
harm; and (v) as a result, the company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the
suit,.

When the truth emerged, Fulgent's stock price fell $11.02 per
share, or 17.29 percent, over the following two trading sessions,
to close at $52.72 per share on August 8, 2022.

Fulgent Genetics, Inc. is a provider of COVID-19, molecular
diagnostic, and genetic testing services to physicians and patients
in the United States and internationally, with principal executive
offices located at 4978 Santa Anita Avenue, Temple City,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (310) 405-7190
         E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

                 - and -

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 697-6484
         Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
         E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

GARDA CL SOUTHEAST: Alicea Sues Over Messengers/Drivers' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATHEWS ALICEA, JUAN J. ORTIZ, and DIEGO PAGAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GARDA CL
SOUTHEAST, INC. d/b/a GARDAWORLD, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-01722
(M.D. Fla., September 20, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendant for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly
situated messengers and drivers overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as non-exempted,
full-time messengers and drivers at any time between 2012 and
2022.

Garda CL Southeast, Inc., doing business as Gardaworld, is a
contract carrier providing services in the U.S. including Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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

GEICO: Agrees to Settle Sales Tax Class Action for $19.1 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business America, reports that
GEICO will pay $19.1 million as part of a settlement agreement to
resolve accusations that it failed to pay sales tax for total loss
auto claims made in California.

A vehicle may be declared a total loss if the damage it sustained
exceeds the value of a car. In such cases, GEICO may pay
policyholders a total loss claim for the actual value of the
vehicle. But plaintiffs had argued that the insurer failed to
include sales tax and regulatory fees in these payments. GEICO
refuted these claims but agreed to a settlement.

The settlement benefits class members who were insured by GEICO and
its subsidiaries and failed to receive claim payouts for either
sales tax or regulatory fees. Specifically, those who submitted
claims on June 27, 2015 (GEICO General), Oct. 23, 2016 (GEICO
Indemnity), or June 30, 2017 (GEICO Casualty or Government
Employees Insurance Company), through August 27, 2020, are eligible
for the payment, Top Class Actions reported.

It was noted that GEICO agreed to a similar settlement with Florida
policyholders in July.

A similar lawsuit was also filed against a Progressive Insurance
subsidiary in March. A plaintiff argued that the insurer used
inaccurate vehicle valuation reports provided by Mitchell
International to underpay customers for total loss claims. [GN]

GENENTECH INC: Parties File Joint Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW WEHNER,
Individually and as a representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, on behalf of the U.S. ROCHE 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN,
v. GENENTECH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-06894-RS (N.D. Cal.),
the Parties stipulate and agree, subject to the court's approval,
as follows:

   1. The following class shall be certified to pursue the
      claims set forth in the Complaint, as subject to and
      limited by the Court's June 14, 2021, Order granting in
      part and denying part the Defendants' motion to dismiss
      the Complaint:

      "All participants and beneficiaries in the U.S. Roche
      401(k) Savings Plan at any time on or after October 2,
      2014 to the present, including any beneficiary of a
      deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any
      time during the Class Period."

   2. The Plaintiff may be appointed Class representative.

   3. Miller Shah LLP and Olivier & Schreiber LLP may be
      appointed Class counsel.

Genentech is an American biotechnology corporation which became a
subsidiary of Roche in 2009. Genentech Research and Early
Development operates as an independent center within Roche.

A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Sept. 19, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fr4LmR at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: rskravitz@millershah.com
                  kctang@millershah.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William G. Gaede, III, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          415 Mission Street, Suite 5600
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
          Telephone: (650) 815-7435
          E-mail: wgaede@mwe.com

               - and -

          Margaret H. Warner, Esq.
          J. Christian Nemeth, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          500 North Capitol Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20001-1531
          Telephone: (202) 756-8000
          E-mail: mwarner@mwe.com
                  jcnemeth@mwe.com

GENEVE HOLDINGS: Bass Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Bass, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated v. GENEVE HOLDINGS, INC., STEVEN B. LAPIN, ROY T.K. THUNG,
and TERESA HERBERT, Case No. 2022-0778- (Del. Chancery Ct., Sept.
7, 2022), is brought on behalf of former stockholders of
Independence Holding Corporation (the "Company," "IHC," or
"Independence Holding") against the Defendants for breaches of
fiduciary duty.

In early 2021, IHC began selling off most of its assets. By
mid-July 2021, the Company had agreed to sell three major business
lines which accounted for the vast majority of its historical
revenue. The Company never publicly provided any rationale for the
Project Trifecta sales. In fact, because IHC did not hold quarterly
investor calls, the Company's last interaction with investors was
its annual meeting in November 2020, where management presented a
rosy picture of the business and identified no pressing strategic
imperative to break up the business. IHC's internal materials were
equally opaque on the purpose of the Trifecta sales.

In response to Plaintiff's books and-records demand, the Company
produced, among other things, formal Board materials relating to
the asset sales. Nowhere in those materials is there any
explanation of why the Company chose to sell most of its assets,
nor is there any evidence of discussions about the expected use of
proceeds from those sales. About three weeks after the last of the
Project Trifecta sales was announced, IHC's majority stockholder,
Geneve, began speaking to lawyers about purchasing the Company.
After a few weeks of desultory back-and-forth, Geneve and IHC
agreed that Geneve would acquire the remaining shares of IHC that
it did not already own for $57 per share in cash. Geneve
conditioned its offer to buy the remaining pieces of IHC on
approval by a Special Committee and a majority of the minority IHC
stockholders. But this attempt at imposing MFW conditions was too
little, too late. The Geneve Buyout was part of an integrated plan
following the already-completed Project Trifecta sales, and a
Special Committee should have been installed before any of those
asset sales took place.

The Company's own documents reveal that the Geneve Buyout was the
final step in the privatization of IHC. The belated Special
Committee's financial advisor, Perella Weinberg Partners, had
originally been considered as an advisor for Geneve. After
switching sides, Perella Weinberg gave a presentation to the
Special Committee, describing the Geneve Buyout as the "final step
in the winding down and privatization of IHC." The unusual
structure of the Geneve Buyout—in which the merger consideration
was funded entirely out of the target's working capital—suggests
that the Project Trifecta asset sales were done to fund the Geneve
Buyout, consistent with regulatory leverage requirements unique to
the insurance space in which IHC and Geneve both operate.

The stockholder vote to approve the Geneve Buyout was uninformed.
In addition to its inaccurate claims that the Project Trifecta
sales and Geneve Buyout were unrelated, the Proxy also failed to
disclose troubling facts about how Perella Weinberg was retained,
conflicts relating to Special Committee members, and material
details about bonus payments to members of management that would be
triggered by the Geneve Buyout.

For all these reasons, Defendants bear the burden of proving a fair
process and fair price. They will be unable to do either. There
were serious process concerns relating to advisor selection and
fiduciary conflicts. Geneve chased away an alternate bidder who was
interested in acquiring a controlling equity stake. Perella
Weinberg was contingently compensated—distorting its incentives.
And its fairness analysis appears to have badly undervalued both of
the Company's remaining non-cash assets after the Project Trifecta
sales, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a beneficial owner of shares of IHC common
stock.

Geneve is a privately held holding company that, through its
subsidiaries, provides various types of insurance, with a focus on
life and health insurance.[BN]

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

               - and -

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


GETHEALTH-E LLC: Johnson-Gruver Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gethealth-E LLC. The
case is styled as Virginia Johnson-Gruver, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated v. Gethealth-E LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00251-DPM (E.D. Ark., Sept. 26, 2022).

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

Get Health E -- http://gethealth-e.com/-- has been in business
since 2009 offering healthcare options to individuals and families
across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (615) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Michael Ryburn, Esq.
          RYBURN LAW FIRM
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 231
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 228-8100
          Email: jason@ryburnlawfirm.com


GOFUND ADVANCE: Haymount, et al., Seek Rule 23 Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAYMOUNT URGENT CARE PC,
ROBERT A. CLINTON, JR., INDIGO INSTALLATIONS, INC., AND CHRISTOPHER
A. TURRENTINE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. GOFUND ADVANCE, LLC, FUNDING 123, LLC, MERCHANT
CAPITAL LLC, ALPHA RECOVERY PARTNERS, LLC, YITZCHOK (ISAAC) WOLF,
JOSEF BREZEL, JOSEPH KROEN, AND YISROEL C. GETTER, Case No.
1:22-cv-01245-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to
enter an order granting motion for class certification pursuant to
FRCP Rule 23.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shane R. Heskin, Esq.
          Alex D. Corey, Esq.
          WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
          7 Times Square, STE 29
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (215) 864-7000
          E-mail: heskins@whiteandwilliams.com

The Defendants are represented by

          Edward Normand, Esq.
          Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
          Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
          Richard Cipolla, Esq.
          Kelvin Goode, Esq.
          ROCHE FREEDMAND LLP (Via ECF)
          99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 350-0527
          E-mail: tnormand@rochefreedman.com

GOLDEN 1 CREDIT: Files Writ of Certiorari in Burgardt Contract Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION filed on September 8, 2022, a petition
for writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the
judgment of the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate
District, in the case captioned Dwaine Burgardt, Plaintiff, v. The
Golden 1 Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. C092637.

On September 3, 2019, Burgardt filed a putative class action
complaint against Golden 1. Burgardt alleged he brought this action
for himself and others similarly situated with Golden 1 checking
accounts to remedy Golden 1's unlawful assessment and collection of
multiple insufficient fund fees for the same debit transaction.
Burgardt alleged he used his debit card to pay a Sprint charge of
$67.78. Golden 1 determined that his account did not have
sufficient funds and charged him an insufficient funds fee of
$27.50. Five days later, Golden 1 charged another $27.50 for the
same item. Burgardt alleged claims for breach of contract, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair
competition, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, unjust
enrichment, and money had and received.

On January 10, 2020, Golden 1 moved to compel arbitration and stay
the action pending arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Golden 1 contended that Burgardt agreed to the Golden 1 arbitration
agreement when he had notice of and an opportunity to review and
opt out of the arbitration agreement, but did not opt out, and
continued to maintain his Golden 1 account and use Golden 1's
services.

The Sacramento Superior Court denied Golden 1's motion to compel
arbitration, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed. Rather
than analyze the specific notice provided under ordinary state law
contract law principles, the California Court of Appeal broadly
held that an arbitration clause may never be added by providing
notice and an opt out procedure unless the original contract
contemplated the addition of an arbitration provision. [BN]

Defendant-Petitioner THE GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION, is represented by:

            E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Esq.
            ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
            51 West 52nd Street
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (212) 506-5380
            E-mail: jrosenkranz@orrick.com

GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Settlement in Fulton Suit Has Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FULTON COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Derivatively on Behalf of The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Plaintiff
v. LLOYD BLANKFEIN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-1562 (VSB)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement.

The lawsuit is a derivative action by Plaintiff Fulton County
Employees' Retirement System on behalf of the Goldman Sachs against
numerous current and former directors and officers of Goldman Sachs
in connection with a corporate scandal involving the Malaysian
sovereign wealth fund 1MDB. The Plaintiff alleges breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, contribution and
indemnification, and violations of Section 10(b) and Section 14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff initiated the action against current and former
directors and officers of Goldman Sachs ("Defendants" or "Goldman")
in connection with a financial scandal involving the Malaysian
sovereign wealth fund 1MDB, for which Goldman affiliates underwrote
three bond issuances during 2012 and 2013. 1MDB engaged Goldman as
the sole bookrunner for the three bond offerings, totaling $6.5
billion, beginning in March 2012. According to the Plaintiff, after
each bond transaction closed, hundreds of millions of dollars were
diverted to shell companies controlled by Malaysian financier Jho
Low ("Low"), an associate of the former Malaysian prime minister
Najib Razak. The assets were then used to fund personal expenses,
finance a film production, and influence Malaysian political
elections.

Goldman acknowledged in a Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DPA")
with the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") that the
Goldman bankers arranged and underwrote the deals despite red flags
and suspicion of illegal activities surrounding the deals. The
Plaintiff noted several red flags related to the deals, such as the
suspicious terms, including the immense size and dollar amounts of
the deals, the speed with which they were formed, the lack of
identifiable uses for the proceeds, their private placement
structure, and the excessive fees being paid to Goldman.

The Plaintiff also noted the involvement of suspicious individuals
in the deals, including Low, who was previously rejected as a
client by Goldman's private wealth division.  Several senior
Goldman executives criticized and objected to the deal. The DPA
highlighted Goldman's internal control failures in enabling the
offerings, including the bankers' failure to verify how the funds
were being used, the compliance team's failure to review the deal
team's emails and thus detect Low's involvement, and the overall
failure to ensure that concerns about apparent misconduct were
properly escalated to the appropriate authorities within and
outside Goldman.

In October 2020, Goldman announced that it and several affiliates
entered into criminal and civil resolutions relating to 1MDB,
resulting in over $5 billion in fines, penalties, and disgorgement.
Additional actions were taken against current and former Goldman
officers, including claw backs, forfeitures, and compensation
reductions. Goldman bankers Tim Leissner and Roger Ng were
indicted, with Leissner pleading guilty and Ng convicted of
conspiracy and other charges in April 2022.

The Plaintiff commenced the action by filing the initial complaint
on Feb. 19, 2019. On July 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Verified
Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint. The Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on Sept. 12, 2019. While the initial motion to
dismiss was pending, on Oct. 22, 2020, Goldman entered into the DPA
with DOJ. On Nov. 16, 2020, Judge Broderick granted the Plaintiff's
motion for leave to file its Second Verified Amended Shareholder
Derivative Complaint. The Defendants moved to dismiss the Second
Verified Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint on Jan. 15, 2021.
The motion to dismiss is currently pending. On May 13, 2022, the
Plaintiff filed the motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, a supporting memorandum of law, and the proposed
settlement agreement.

Having reviewed the Plaintiff's submissions, including the
memorandum of law in support of its motion, the settlement
agreement, and all other attached exhibits, Judge Broderick
concludes that the Settlement Agreement's terms merit preliminary
approval. First, the settlement terms appear to be the result of an
extensive and good-faith process, including a two-day mediation
presided over by the Honorable Daniel Weinstein (Ret.) and Jed D.
Melnick of JAMS (the "Mediators"), who are a "highly experienced
mediation team." Second, the settlement terms do not have any
obvious deficiencies and fall within the range of possible
approval. Moreover, the corporate governance reforms in the
Settlement Agreement are reasonable and would likely be
unachievable through litigation.

The attorneys' fees and expenses "not to exceed 25% of the Monetary
Consideration" also appear reasonable at this point. However, Judge
Broderick notes that additional materials, like the attorneys'
affidavits and billing records, will be examined at the stage of
final approval.  In light of these factors, he preliminarily
approves the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Broderick has also reviewed the proposed plan for providing
notice to the Class, which involves: (1) filing a copy of the
Stipulation and the Notice as an exhibit to a Form 8-K with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission; (2) posting a
copy of the Stipulation and the Notice in a link on the "Investor
Relations" page of the Company's corporate website through the
Effective Date of the Settlement; and (3) publishing a Summary
Notice in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times and by a
national wire service. After review, he concludes that the form and
manner of the proposed notice constitutes the best notice
practicable under the circumstances and meets the requirements of
due process. The plan also satisfies all of the seven elements of
Rule 23(c)(2)(B) identified.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Broderick grants the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion. The parties submitted a proposed order setting
forth the settlement procedure and schedule, and he will approve
the proposed procedure in a separate order to be filed together
with his Opinion & Order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to close the open motions on the docket.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/32e6zpvy from Leagle.com.

Steven B. Singer -- ssinger@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White P.A.,
in White Plains, New York.

Maya Saxena -- msaxena@saxenawhite.com -- Joseph E. White, III --
jwhite@saxenawhite.com -- Lester R. Hooker --
lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White P.A., in Boca Raton,
Florida, Counsel for the Plaintiff.

Gregory Frederick Laufer -- glaufer@paulweiss.com -- Staci Lynn
Yablon -- syablon@paulweiss.com  -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, in New York City, Counsel for the Defendants.


GREENSKY INC: Jerrick Bucks File Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXISS WRIGHT, et al., v.
GREENSKY, INC., et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-62441-BB (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff Jerrick Buck asks the Court to enter an order granting
certification of the following class:

   "All persons in Florida who, between July 17, 2016, and the
   present, secured a GreenSky Consumer Program loan with a
   principal amount of at least $1,000, on which GreenSky
   collected a transaction fee."

The Plaintiff further seeks appointment of the his counsel as class
counsel under Rule 23(g).

The proposed class action arises under two statutes, Florida's
Credit Service Organization Act and Loan Broker Law, both of which
are designed to ensure transparency and otherwise protect consumers
taking out loans. Both statutes require companies brokering
consumer loans to disclose certain information to the consumer
borrowers.

According to the complaint, the Defendant GreenSky falls squarely
within the reach of both statutes, yet GreenSky systematically
fails to provide the required transparency. The company acts as a
three-way middleman between homeowners, contractors, and lenders.
So, a homeowner beginning a home-improvement project may be told by
their contractor that there is an option to finance the project.

Behind the scenes, GreenSky has set up the process for the
contractor to be able to offer that financing. Meanwhile, GreenSky
works with a bank to qualify the homeowner for the loan and, once
that's done, GreenSky transfers the loan proceeds to the
contractor. Throughout this process, neither GreenSky, nor anyone
else, discloses to the homeowner that GreenSky is charging a
sizable fee for brokering the loan, and that the fee will drive up
the overall cost of the project for the homeowner, the lawsuit
adds.

GreenSky is a financial technology company founded in 2006 based in
Atlanta, Georgia.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 19,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BOIyXl
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq.
          Victoria S. Nugent, Esq.
          Brian E. Johnson, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          11780 US Highway One, Suite N500
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          Facsimile: (561) 515 -1401
          E-mail: lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com
                  vnugent@cohenmilstein.com
                  bejohnson@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Bryce Bell, Esq.
          Mark W. Schmitz, Esq.
          Andrew R. Taylor, Esq.
          BELL LAW, LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 886-8206
          Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
          E-mail: bryce@belllawkc.com
                  ms@belllawkc.com
                  at@belllawkc.com

               - and -

          David Stein, Esq.
          Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ds@classlawgroup.com
                  kjg@classlawgroup.com

GREG LINDBERG: Jordan, et. al., File Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES JORDAN, et. al, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly, v. GREG E. LINDBERG,
Case No. 1:22-cv-483-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying the following Class:

   -- The PFC/CBL Contract Earners Class:

      "All persons or entities who (a) at any point during the
      three year period of time preceding October 21, 2021
      through the present, (b) had a contract with PFC related
      to CBL Policies, (c) earned commissions for the issuance,
      selling, or servicing of CBL Policies, (d) but have not
      been paid those commissions on behalf of themselves and
      the agents acting on their behalf."

      Excluded from the Class is: (a) any Judge or Magistrate
      presiding over this action and members of their families;
      (b) PFC, CBL and any entity which PFC or CBL has a
      controlling interest, or which has a controlling interest
      in PFC or CBL and all legal representatives; and (c) all
      persons who properly execute and file a timely request for
      exclusion.

The Plaintiffs also as the Court to appoint their counsel as Class
Counsel, and appoin  them as Class Representatives.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xRNF7S
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
          Mark R. Sigmon, Esq.
          Jeremy R. Williams, Esq.
          Jacob M. Morse, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 West Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: mlee@milberg.com
                  msigmon@milberg.com
                  jwilliams@milberg.com
                  jmorse@milberg.com

               - and -

          Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
          Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
          MAGINNIS HOWARD, PLLC
          7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
          Raleigh, NC 27615
          Telephone: (919) 526-0450
          Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
          E-mail: emaginnis@maginnishoward.com
                  kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com

HAIER US: Bid to Compel Sales Data in Haft Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HAFT, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. HAIER US APPLIANCE
SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-0506 (GHW) (JW)
(S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in part
and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel sales data from
the Defendant.

Plaintiffs Asher Haft, Robert Fisher, and Cheryl Jones bring the
putative class action individually and on behalf of consumers who
purchased ranges and wall ovens with soda lime glass front doors
(collectively, the "Ovens") manufactured by the Defendant.
Following the parties, July 14, 2022 conference, the Court ordered
the Plaintiffs to file "arguments with supporting caselaw to strike
the Defendant's objections to the Plaintiffs' discovery requests
regarding bifurcation and sales data." The Plaintiffs thereafter
filed their motion to compel sales data from the Defendant. The
Defendant opposed and the Plaintiff filed a reply.

The Plaintiffs seek two types of data, which they claim are
relevant for their experts "to develop and implement a damages
model for purposes of class certification" -- sell-in data and
sell-through data. Sell-in data consists of "(a) the number of Oven
units sold to specific retailers, as well as (b) the price at which
the units sold to retailers." Id. Sell-through data consists of
"(a) the number (or assumed number) of Ovens sold, and (b) the
average retail price at which the Ovens were sold." The Plaintiffs'
experts will "conduct a conjoint analysis to determine the
reduction in value of the Ovens due solely" to the alleged defect
in the Ovens.

Then, "using the results of the conjoint survey, the Plaintiffs'
damages expert will account for the supply side of the damages
analysis by ensuring (1) the price range used in the survey
reflects the actual market prices that prevailed during the class
period; and (2) the quantity of Class Ovens used (or assumed) in
the damages calculations reflects the actual quantity of such ovens
sold during the class period.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant's failure to disclose sales
data will prejudice them because it "will unjustly enable the
Defendant to argue that they do not have (or cannot obtain) the
necessary data to field the conjoint survey following class
certification." Accordingly, if they are not permitted discovery on
the Defendant's sales data prior to class certification then, at a
minimum, it should not be allowed to challenge their inability to
ascertain this information. Lastly, the Plaintiffs contend that
fact discovery should be extended so that they have sufficient time
to obtain the requested data from the Defendant's retailers and
distributors.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' Motion should be denied
because they have not identified the Requests for Production under
which they seek to compel information. It asserts that the prices
at which it sold ovens to retailers has no bearing on this
calculation. Such a position is consistent with the Plaintiffs'
breach of warranty and statutory claims, which all focus on the
price paid by the consumer.

In addition, the Defendant contends that the information the
Plaintiffs seek is "highly sensitive and confidential" and it risks
serious harm if the information was disclosed to its competitors or
its retailers." However, it is willing "to produce lists showing
the total unit volume (for the parties' agreed-upon model scope) it
shipped to the four states in the relevant time period,
supplemental national sales data that includes the additional
models the parties agreed to add to the model scope, and certain
retailer-specific quantities." Lastly, the Defendant states that
the Court should not preclude it from challenging the Plaintiffs'
still undisclosed expert discovery and should deny their discovery
extension request because they have failed to explain why good
cause exists and have not requested a specific time for extension.

The Plaintiff states the Defendant has only provided the names of
its retailers and distributors despite having "ready access" to
sales data regarding the number of Ovens sold or the dollar amount
that it sold the Ovens to its retailers. They request the following
nationwide Oven unit sales data so that they and their experts can
pursue third-party discovery: "(a) the date of sale, (b) the
purchasing entity, (c) the state where the purchasing entity is
located, (d) the state where the order was shipped, (e) the SKU and
quantity of Oven range(s) purchased by each purchasing entity, and
(f) the price the purchasing entity paid for each Oven."
Alternatively, the Defendant "should produce the sales data for the
relevant states to which it has shipped the Ovens."

To begin, Judge Willis notes that she is unpersuaded by the
Defendant's argument that the Plaintiffs' Motion should be denied
outright for failing to state the specific RFPs at issue. The
parties were aware both before, during, and after the parties' July
14, 2022 conference of the RFPs at issue considering the parties'
pre-motion letters and discussion during the conference.

Judge Willis finds that the Defendant must produce the following
data from Tableau -- date of sale, purchasing entity, state where
the purchasing entity is located, state where the order was
shipped, and SKU and quantity of Ovens purchased. This data will
enable the Plaintiffs to direct appropriate third-party discovery
to retailers and distributors to obtain sell-through data for their
conjoint survey and damages analysis. The data does not implicate
the Defendant's confidentiality and sensitivity concerns given the
parties' Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective
Order.

The Defendant must produce such information for independent
retailers located in the following states -- New York, New Jersey,
Florida, and Pennsylvania (the "States"). For national and online
retailers, it must produce such information only for orders shipped
to any one of the States. It need not produce such information for
buying groups because it states it "does not have data on where the
oven ranges associated with those sales were ultimately sold" and
thus it cannot determine if the sales relate to Ovens sold to
consumers in the States.

Judge Willis also finds that the Defendant need not produce the
price the purchasing entity paid it as the Plaintiffs have failed
to articulate the relevance of such data to their complaint,
conjoint survey or damages analysis, which are based on the price
consumers, not retailers, paid for the Ovens. She rejects the
Plaintiffs' request for the relevant data on a nationwide basis
because they only bring this suit on behalf of consumers in New
York, New Jersey, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Moreover, she rejects
their argument regarding the Defendant's potential challenge to
their inability to ascertain sales data as premature.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Willis grants in part and denies
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion. If the Plaintiffs require
additional time for fact discovery, they may file a letter in
accordance with the Court's Individual Practices specifying the
time needed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3vpkd8w4 from Leagle.com.


HALLAL FOOD: Garcia Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Deli Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HALLAL FOOD EMPORIUM INC. (D/B/A TANJAWI
MARKET), MOHAMMED TAMIMI, and RACHID TAMIMI, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-05607-KAM-MMH (E.D.N.Y., September 20, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to
provide wage notices, failure to provide wage statements, failure
to reimburse business expenses, and failure to timely pay wages.

Mr. Garcia was employed as a baker, food preparer, and butcher at
Tanjawi Market, located at 25-17 Steinway Street, Astoria, New York
from approximately 2007 until May 10, 2022.

Hallal Food Emporium Inc. is an owner and operator of a deli under
the name Tanjawi Market, located at 25-17 Steinway Street, Astoria,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Catalina Sojo, Esq.
         CSM LEGAL, PC
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

HEALTH CARE: Underpays Medical Management Specialists, Aguilar Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER AGUILAR, MICHELLE MUNOZ, and NICOLE ROGERS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEALTH
CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00688-KK-JFR
(D.N.M., September 19, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendant for failure to pay the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
medical management specialists overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as medical management
specialists at any time between 2014 and 2021.

Health Care Service Corporation is the parent company of HCSC
Insurance Services Company, Inc., doing business as Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of New Mexico, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Jack Siegel, Esq.
         SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
         5706 E. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 115
         Dallas, TX 75206
         Telephone: (214) 790-4454
         E-mail: Jack@siegellawgroup.biz

                 - and -

         Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
         THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
         3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
         Houston, TX 77056
         Telephone: (281) 572-0727
         E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

HELLOFRESH SE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Spam Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges HelloFresh has sent unlawful telemarketing
text messages to consumers' cell phones without consent.

According to the 13-page lawsuit, defendant Grocery Delivery
E-Services USA, Inc., who does business as meal kit delivery
company HelloFresh, has violated the Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act (FTSA), a state law that prohibits the use of an "automated
system" to place telemarketing calls without a recipient's express
written consent.

The plaintiff in the case is an Ocala, Florida resident who says he
received the following text message from HelloFresh on July 1,
2021:

"HelloFresh: Check dinner off of your to-dos for next week. Sign up
now & get 16 free meals across 7 boxes! Reply STOP to end txts.
https://txts.ly/XLK0Ae"

Per the case, the text message sent to the plaintiff was placed by
way of an "automated system for the selection or dialing of
telephone numbers" as defined in the FTSA. More specifically, the
lawsuit says the defendant used a system that allowed it to send
telemarketing texts en masse using hardware or software capable of
selecting and dialing numbers in an automated manner without human
intervention.

The plaintiff says he never gave HelloFresh prior express written
consent to send the telemarketing text message. The message invaded
the plaintiff's privacy and intruded upon his seclusion given his
cell phone alerts him whenever he receives a text message, the suit
claims.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Florida who, at any time
since July 1, 2021, received a "telephonic sales call" (which
includes text messages) made by or on behalf of HelloFresh using
the same type of equipment used to send the text message to the
plaintiff. [GN]

HOME ARTS DESIGN: Oliveira Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie De Oliveira, for herself and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. HOME ARTS DESIGN FLORIDA, CORP. EDGARD A.
SANTOS, individually, Case No. 0:22-cv-61817-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept.
26, 2022), is brought against the Defendants for the Defendants'
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the
Plaintiff the proper compensation for every overtime hour worked at
the rate of time and one-half their regular rate.

The Plaintiff regularly worked 65 and 79 hours weekly. However, the
Plaintiff was paid at her regular rate, an average of 86 hours
bi-weekly or 43 hours per week. The remaining hours were not paid
to Plaintiff at any rate, not even at the minimum wage rate as
required by law. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but the
Defendants were in complete control of the Plaintiff's schedule,
and they were able to keep track of the time worked by the
Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff for all her overtime hours at the rate of time and
one-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 hired as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly
employee.

HOME ARTS DESIGN is a construction company specializing in
commercial and residential remodeling.[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


HONOLULU, HI: Hayslip Seeks Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT M. HAYSLIP, on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, v. CITY
AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Case No. 1:22-CV-00410 DKW-WRP D. Haw.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this action for purposes of
      notice and discovery;

   2. directing the Defendant produce to Plaintiff the contact
      information for potential collective action class members
      described above within 10 days; and

   3. approving the form and content of Plaintiff's proposed
      notice.

The Plaintiff Robert Hayslip filed this action on behalf of himself
and similarly situated individuals, alleging that the City and
County of Honolulu violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in
three ways.

   First, that the Defendant failed to correctly calculate the
   regular rate of pay when computing FLSA required overtime
   payments resulting in lesser payments than required.

   Second, that the Defendant failed to pay FLSA required
   overtime payments.

   Third, that the Defendant has untimely paid FLSA required
   overtime payments.

The Plaintiff moves this Court to conditionally certify this case
as an FLSA collective action and to order that notice be sent to
members of a class of individuals who (1) are or were eligible for
FLSA overtime by virtue of employment in the City and County of
Honolulu’s Department of Emergency Services as Emergency Medical
Technician's and/or Paramedics and (2) were under and/or
uncompensated for their FLSA overtime.

The Defendant employs the Plaintiff and putative additional
collective action members as Emergency Medical Technicians and/or
Paramedics within its Department of Emergency Services.

Honolulu County is a consolidated city–county in the U.S. state
of Hawaii. The city–county includes both the city of Honolulu and
the rest of the island of Oʻahu, as well as several minor outlying
islands, including all of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands except
Midway Atoll.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r85ax2
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Aitchison, Esq.
          Ryan Lufkin, Esq.
          Traci Anderson, Esq.
          PUBLIC SAFETY LABOR GROUP
          PO Box 12070
          Portland, OR, 97212
          Telephone: (866) 486-5556
          E-mail: Will@PSLGlawyers.com
                  Ryan@PSLGlawyers.com
                  Traci@PSLGlawyers.com

               - and -

          Chasid M. Sapolu, Esq.
          SAPOLU LAW OFFICE
          500 Ala Moana Blvd, Ste. 7400
          Honolulu, HI, 96813
          Telephone: (808) 466-1520
          E-mail: Chasid@Sapolulaw.com

HOOVESTOL INC: Court Certifies Subclasses in Hardwick Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS HARDWICK, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HOOVESTOL, INC., a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-07505-DMG-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order:

   1. certifying the following subclasses:

      a. Wage Statement Subclass

         "All Class Members employed by the Defendant in the
         State of California at any time from May 22, 2019 to
         the present;" and

      b. Waiting Time Penalty Subclass

         "All former hourly drivers employed by the Defendant in
         the State of California at any time from May 22, 2017
         through the present, who are not members of the Terry
         class or who performed work after December 7, 2018, and
         who received hourly fringe pay and sick pay during the
         same pay period;"

   2. appointing Thomas Hardwick as the representative of the
      Class;

   3. appointing James R. Hawkins, Christina M. Lucio, and
      Mitchell J. Murray of James Hawkins APLC as Class Counsel;
      and

   4. Within one week of this Order, directing the parties to
      meet and confer and file a joint status report with a
      proposed timeline for the distribution of the class
      notice, and a stipulation to name Roads Express as an
      additional Defendant.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r5JLV3 at no extra charge.[CC]

HOSPITALS CORPORATION: Underpays Nurse Practitioners, Sumpter Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNINE SUMPTER, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HOSPITALS CORPORATION d/b/a NYC HEALTH+HOSPITALS, Case
No. 1:22-cv-08176 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2022) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Sumpter and the other workers like her, who worked for,
or on behalf of Defendant, regularly worked more than 40 hours per
workweek. He asserts that Defendant misclassified her and other
workers as independent contractors and paid them the same hourly
rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a
work week with no overtime pay in violation of the federal and
state laws.

Ms. Sumpter worked for H+H as a nurse practitioner in June of 2020
during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hospitals Corporation is a public benefit corporation headquartered
in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          
               - and -

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

               - and -

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

HOT TOPIC: Byars Sues Over Wiretapping of Website Communications
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARISHA BYARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOT TOPIC INC. and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-01652 (C.D. Cal., September
20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the CIPA by (1)
secretly wiretapping the private conversations of everyone who
communicates through the chat feature at its website,
www.hottopic.com; and (2) paying a third party to eavesdrop on such
communications in real time in order to harvest data from those
conversations for financial gain. The Defendant neither informs
visitors of the wiretapping or the eavesdropping on its website nor
obtains their consent to these intrusions, says the suit.

Hot Topic Inc. is California corporation that owns and operates the
website, www.hottopic.com. [BN]

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

IKEA US: Court Enters Sixth Scheduling Order in Dukich Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA and JOHN DUKICH, et
al., v. IKEA US RETAIL LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02182-HB (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle III entered a sixth scheduling
order as follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs shall file their supplemental brief in
      support of their motion for class certification on or
      before October 7, 2022.

   2. The Defendants shall file their brief in opposition
      on or before November 7, 2022.

   3. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply brief on or
      before November 21, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dS3zs5 at no extra charge.[CC]

INFORMA MEDIA: Gottsleben Sues Over Disclosed Private Reading Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK GOTTSLEBEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INFORMA MEDIA, INC. F/K/A PENTON MEDIA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00866-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.,
September 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of renting,
exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing the private reading
information of "Michigan Farmer" magazine subscribers, including
the Plaintiff, to data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn
disclosed the information to aggressive advertisers, political
organizations, and non-profit companies. As a result of the
Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
subscribers received a barrage of unwanted junk mail, says the
suit.

Informa Media, Inc., formerly known as Penton Media, Inc., is a
publisher of various magazines, newsletters, and other
publications, with its headquarters in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         E.Powell Miller, Esq.
         Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
         THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
         950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
         Rochester, MI 48307
         Telephone: (248) 841-2200
         E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                 ssa@millerlawpc.com

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

         Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
         Arun G. Ravindran, 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
                 aravindran@hedinhall.com

JONATHON PATROWICZ: Averts Former Patients' TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, writing for TCPAWorld, reports that so a doctor
out in Maryland had about 4,000 patients and wanted to reduce that
number to 300 because, well, he was just to dang busy.

In order to facilitate the reduction the good Doctor elected to
advise his patients that he was going to be letting about 90% of
them go. He did the right thing -- in my view -- and attempted to
reach out to them, first by email, and then by phone.

One of the recipients of the calls, however, was a lady named
Kimberly Derossett. She used to visit the Doctor for years but then
decided to switch doctors (not clear why from the opinion.) But
although she stopped going to her previous doctor, he considered
her a patient still since he did not know she had a new doctor.

But Derossett considered the doctor a nuisance and sued him under
the TCPA. She argued that the calls he made were actually marketing
calls -- because although he was calling to dump 3,700 patients he
was also calling to enroll "on a first come first serve" basis 300
patients into his new micro-practice. So in Derossett's mind this
was also marketing, and not mere informational calling. (The old
dual purpose issue!)

Derossett believed the distinction was critical because she
admitted she had given the doctor her phone number. So the Doctor
had the right to call her regarding matters related to his practice
and her care (which an informational message advising her she was
being dumped from his practice would certainly be.) But, she
maintained, the Doctor messed up by simultaneously inviting her to
join his new subscription based practice. That was marketing, and
not allowed because no PEWC was provided.

But the Court disagreed with this dichotomy in this case. The
reason? The calls were healthcare related. And the FCC has held
that healthcare calls–even if they contain marketing–do not
require written consent. Regular express consent is sufficient. See
Sec. 64.1200(a)(2)

In the Court's view the calls were healthcare related because:

they relate to patients' care and services—indeed, each call
discussed impending changes to patients' primary care. In the first
call, Dr. Patrowicz referenced a letter he had sent in which he
announced that his practice would be downsizing and he invited his
patients to ask questions about the impending "changes" to their
"healthcare program." In the second call, he explained that his
downsized "medical practice" was nearly full and encouraged any
other interested patients to sign up while spots remained. Dr.
Patrowicz called his patients to warn them that they would soon
lose their doctor if they did not sign up for his new practice. It
is hard to imagine a message more related to "health care" than one
that notifies a patient that she may soon lose her doctor.

The Court pointed out that the entire purpose of the healthcare
exception was to convert marketing calls about healthcare into
informational calls. And that means even a dual purpose call did
not require written consent in this context.

The case is Derosset v. Patrowicz, D.O. 2022 WL 4448859 (D. Md.
Sept. 23, 2022) and it is a great one to keep in mind for anyone
out there who is making healthcare related calls. Keep in mind you
still need valid EXPRESS consent to communicate healthcare messages
with consumers. But if you have such consent you can make dual
purpose and marketing calls WITHOUT written consent and using
regulated technology. [GN]

JOSEPH FINANCIAL: Class Cert Filing Extended in Fraud
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as O'NEAL, et al., v. JOSEPH
FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-00939 (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Mary S. Scriven entered an order granting unopposed
motion for extension of time to file plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The plaintiffs shall have up to and including October 24, 2022 to
file the motion for class certification.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- securities
fraud.[CC]

JUUL LABS: Madison Metropolitan Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MADISON METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05328 (N.D. Cal., September 20, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Madison Metropolitan School District is a public school district
with its administrative offices located in Madison, Wisconsin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

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

KIRK'S NATURAL: Agrees to Settle False Ads Class Suit for $650,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Kirk's Natural agreed to pay
$650,000 to resolve claims its South of France soaps, lotions and
other products are actually made in Kentucky. No proof of purchase
is needed for consumers to benefit from the settlement.

The settlement benefits class members who purchased certain South
of France products between Sept. 3, 2015, and Aug. 12, 2022.
Products included in the settlement are various scents of 6-ounce
bar soap, 8-ounce hand wash, 8-ounce foaming hand wash, 1.5-ounce
trial- and travel-size bar soap and 8-ounce hydrating hand and body
cream. A full list of eligible South of France products is
available on the settlement website.

South of France is a natural body care brand that sells soaps and
lotions. According to the South of France website, the company's
original soap formula was developed by a French immigrant and
manufactured in France.

A class action lawsuit from customers of the brand says South of
France soaps are now manufactured in Kentucky. Despite this fact,
South of France products are allegedly marketed with misleading
representations such as French text translations, images of the
French coastline and other French notations.

According to the false advertising class action lawsuit, reasonable
customers would believe the products are made in France after
seeing these representations. South of France allegedly knows this
and chooses to mislead customers in order to charge a higher price
for the soaps and body products.

"Defendant knows that consumers are willing to pay more for French
beauty care products due to their perception that they are of
better quality, and believing they are paying costs associated with
importing French products to the United States," the South of
France products class action lawsuit contends.

Plaintiffs say they wouldn't have paid as much for the products if
the product packaging had disclosed that the soaps were
manufactured in the United States.

Kirk's Natural hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay
$650,000 to resolve these allegations.

Under the terms of the South of France products settlement, class
members can receive a cash payment based on the number of eligible
products they purchased.

Class members can receive up to $2 per product. With proof of
purchase, class members can claim up to 40 products, for a maximum
payment of $80. Without proof of purchase, class members can claim
up to 10 products, for a maximum payment of $20.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 6, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the South of France products
settlement is scheduled for Jan. 30, 2023.

In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by May 1, 2023.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits class members who purchased certain South
of France products between Sept. 3, 2015, and Aug. 12, 2022.
Products included in the settlement are various scents of 6-ounce
bar soap, 8-ounce hand wash, 8-ounce foaming hand wash, 1.5-ounce
trial- and travel-size bar soap and 8-ounce hydrating hand and body
cream. A full list of eligible South of France products is
available on the settlement website.

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
Proof of purchase not required but could potentially lead to a
higher payout

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
05/01/2023

Case Name
Salerno, et al v. Kirk's Natural LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04987-BMC in
the District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Final Hearing
01/30/2023

Settlement Website
SouthOfFranceSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
South of France Products Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Info@SouthofFranceSettlement.com
888-891-1151

Class Counsel
Michael R Reese
REESE LLP

Defense Counsel
Stacy A Cole
GRAYDON HEAD & RITCHEY LLP [GN]

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: MSP Sues Over Defective CPAP Machines
----------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS SERIES, LLC; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC; MAOMSO
RECOVERY II, LLC, SERIES PMPI; SERIES 44, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS PROV,
SERIES LLC; and MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS CAID, SERIES LLC, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, PHILIPS
HOLDING USA INC., PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS
NORTH AMERICA HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01293-JFC (W.D. Pa., Sept. 8, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of the implied
warranty of usability, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, the Magnuson-Moss Federal Warranty Act, and several consumer
protection laws in the U.S.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices for sleep and home
respiratory care, which contain polyester-based polyurethane sound
abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants recalled CPAP and
BiLevel PAP devices containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined
that (a) the PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles
that may enter the devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by
users, and (b) the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during
operation health risks associated to the devices. As a result of
the health risks associated with the use of these devices, the
Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered injuries, including
substantial economic losses related to their purchase or lease of
the recalled devices and accessories, and replacement machines and
accessories, and losses from not being able to use their machines,
and other consequential damages, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs are companies that have obtained irrevocable
assignments of any and all rights to recover reimbursement or
payment from Defendants.

Koninklijke Philips NV is a health technology company focused on
improving people's health across the health continuum from healthy
living and prevention, to diagnosis, treatment, and home care. The
Company offers products and services in diagnostic imaging,
image-guided therapy, patient monitoring and health informatics, as
well as in consumer health and home care.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jorge A. Mestre, Esq.
          Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
          Schneur Z. Kass, Esq.
          Amanda L. Fernandez, Esq.    
          RIVERO MESTRE LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-2500
          Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
          E-mail: jmestre@riveromestre.com
                  zkass@riveromestre.com
                  afernandez@riveromestre.com

               - and -

          Janpaul Portal, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          27701 S. Le Jeune Road, 10th Floor  
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          E-mail: jportal@msprecoverylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sandra L. Duggan, Esq.
          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4633
          E-mail: sduggan@lfsblaw.com
                  cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: kelly@lcllp.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          One Haverford Centre
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com

KRUGER FOODS INC: Ball Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kruger Foods, Inc.
The case is styled as Douglas Ball, as an individual on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kruger
Foods, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0008581 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., Sept. 26, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

Kruger Foods, Inc. -- https://www.krugerfoods.com/ -- provides food
products. The Company offers pickles, peppers, mayonnaise and
dressing, pumpables, and refrigerated products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310) 496-5818
          Fax: (310) 510-6429
          Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com

KYOCERA CORP: Agrees to Settle Investors' Class Suit for $49.9-M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wide Format Online reports that print technology manufacturer
Kyocera Corporation has agreed to a $49.9 million settlement to end
a class action lawsuit by investors over the company's 2020 merger
with US electronics manufacturer AVX.

AVX shareholders filed a $1 billion class action suit against
Japan's Kyocera, accusing the company of what US reports termed a
"squeeze-out merger" with South Carolina-based electronics company
AVX.

According to a Delaware's Chancery Court notice, the settlement
includes a $49.9 million payment to be made by insurers for Kyocera
and the AVX directors to former investors in the electronics
company.

AVX was acquired by Kyocera in 2020.

KYOCERA AVX Components Corporation is now a leading international
manufacturer and supplier of advanced electronic components and
interconnect, sensor, control and antenna solutions with 33
manufacturing facilities in 16 countries around the world.

The document solutions side of Kyocera's business recently entered
the Australian market and exhibited at PacPrint in June.

Kyocera is also a major manufacturer of advanced inkjet printheads
used by many manufacturers of label, cut-sheet, packaging and wide
format printers.[GN]

LA ROLA RESTAURANT: Jimenez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatima Jimenez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LA ROLA RESTAURANT INC (D/B/A LA ROLA RESTAURANT) and
ROLANDO FELIX, Case No. 1:22-cv-08218 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2022),
is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y.
Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of
the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
she had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants maintained a
policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees
to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the
minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and
state law and regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cook at the restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Dominican restaurant,
located in Bronx, New York under the name "La Rola
Restaurant."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LANCESOFT INC: Preliminary Sched Order Entered in Perofeta Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMETRIUS PEROFETA,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v.
LANCESOFT, INC., and LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00512-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered a preliminary
scheduling order as follows:

  -- All stipulated amendments or           January 6, 2023
     motions to amend shall be
     filed by:

  -- All non-expert discovery,              Sept. 8, 2023.
     including motions to compel,
     shall be completed no later
     than:

  -- Class Certification Motion             June 16, 2023
     Filing Deadline:

  -- Class Certification                    August 16, 2023
     Opposition:

  -- Class Certification Reply:             October 16, 2023

  -- Class Certification Motion             November 1, 2023
     Hearing:

LanceSoft provides information technology solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LTXJCU at no extra charge.[CC]

LEVEL 5 CARPENTRY: Arroyo Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michell Arroyo, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. LEVEL 5 CARPENTRY CORP., and related or
affiliated entities, and MITCHELL BLONDER, Case No. 158215/2022
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Sept. 26, 2022), is brought pursuant
to the New York Labor Law; New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations
to recover overtime compensation owed to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The
Defendants paid the Plaintiff at a rate of approximately $30.00 to
$40.00 per hour for all hours worked, including hours worked over
40 hours per week. As such, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek. Like the Plaintiff, Putative Class Members
routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week and were not paid
overtime wages at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for hours worked over 40, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee who worked for the
Defendants performing carpentry work from January 2022 to July
2022.

The Defendants operate a construction and carpentry business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-943-9080
          Fax: 212-943-9082
          Email: jnewhouse@vandallp.com
                 asakovits@vandallp.com


LINCOLN BENEFIT: Farley Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEANA FARLEY, Individually
and on Behalf of the Class, v. LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY, a
Nebraska Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure:

   1. Certifying the case as a class action with the Class
      defined as:

      "All owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured,
      of Defendant’s individual life insurance policies issued
      in California before 2013 that Defendant lapsed or
      terminated for the non-payment of premium in or after 2013
      without first providing all the notices, grace periods,
      and offers of designation required by Insurance Code
      Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72;"

   2. Appointing Plaintiff Deana Farley as the Class
      Representative; and

   3. Appointing the law firms of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and
      Winters & Associates as Class Counsel

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DVI3xk
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

               - and -

          Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
          Georg M. Capielo, Esq.
          Sarah Ball, Esq.
          WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
          8489 La Mesa Boulevard
          La Mesa, CA 91942
          Telephone: (619) 234-9000
          Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
          E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
                  gcapielo@einsurelaw.com
                  sball@einsurelaw.com

LM GENERAL: Baskerville Balks at Uninsured Motorist Coverage Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WARREN BASKERVILLE, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. LM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, individually and d/b/a LIBERTY MUTUAL, Defendant, Case No.
220900751 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., Sept. 9, 2022) seeks
declaratory relief and compensatory contractual uninsured motorist
benefits on behalf of the individual Plaintiff and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, under insurance policies
issued by the Defendant in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant, has continuously,
systematically, wrongfully and wantonly denied and/or failed to
acknowledge the availability of uninsured and underinsured motorist
coverages under policies issued in accordance with the requirements
of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law by
reason of the regular use exclusion.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons injured in
motor vehicle accidents from 1990 to the present as a result of the
negligence of an uninsured or an underinsured motorist who were
insureds under Automobile Policies providing uninsured and/or
underinsured motorist coverage in accordance with the MVFRL and
where: (a) the named insured had uninsured and underinsured
motorist coverage; (b) a claim was made for recovery of uninsured
and/or underinsured motorist coverage under the policy; and, (c)
the claim for recovery of uninsured or underinsured motorist
coverage was denied by reason of the regular use exclusion.

LM General Insurance Co operates as an insurance company. The
Company provides insurance services for auto, boats, equipment
breakdowns, inland marine, bonds, property, and home. LM General
Insurance serves customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

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

               - and -

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

MARCHESE & CO: Gomez-Velazquez Files Renewed Bid for Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfredo Gomez-Velazquez On
behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, v. Marchese &
Co. and Cut Fresh, LLC, Case No. 20CV1802 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure certifying him as the
representative, and the Previant Law Firm S.C. as
class counsel, for the following opt-out class:

   "All hourly employees employed by Defendant Cut Fresh, LLC
   who during the time period between November 6, 2018 and the
   present either (a) worked as a production or maintenance
   employee for Cut Fresh; or (b) punched in after a meal break
   less than 30 minutes after punching out for the break."

Marchese & Co is a North Lima General contractors company servicing
your local community in Mahoning County Ohio.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com

MCG HEALTH: Taylor Breach Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TIFFANY TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCG HEALTH, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company; DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-01359-SSS-SHK, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle on Sept. 8, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01270-RSL to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated persons, bring this class action to secure redress against
MCG for its reckless and negligent violation of their privacy
rights. The Plaintiff and Class Members are patients and former
patients of MCG customer hospitals who had their personal
identifying information and protected health information collected,
stored and ultimately breached by MCG, says the suit.

MCG Health, LLC is a technology vendor that provides patient care
guidelines and clinical guidance software to hospitals and
healthcare providers across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          Robert J. Dart, Esq.
          Jesse S. Chen, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  jchen@wilshirelawfirm.com

MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Woodstown-Pilesgrove Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional School District, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05107 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 8, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The complaint alleges that JLI, the investors and board members,
who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Hoyoung Huh,
referred as the Management Defendants, and Altria Group, Inc.
worked together to implement their shared goal of growing a youth
market in the image of the combustible cigarette market through a
multi-pronged strategy to: (1) create an highly addictive product
that users would not associate with cigarettes and that would
appeal to the lucrative youth market, (2) deceive the public into
thinking the product was a fun and safe alternative to cigarettes
that would also help smokers quit, (3) actively attract young users
through targeted marketing, and (4) use a variety of tools,
including false and deceptive statements to the public and
regulators, to delay regulation of e-cigarettes. As alleged in the
complaint, each of the Defendants played a critical role -- at
times overlapping and varying over time -- in each of these
strategies, says the suit.

Under the leadership of the Management Defendants, JLI marketed
nicotine to kids. JLI and the Management Defendants deployed a
sophisticated viral marketing campaign that strategically laced
social media with false and misleading messages to ensure their
uptake and distribution among young users. JLI and the Management
Defendants' campaign was wildly successful -- burying their hook
into kids and initiating a public health crisis, added the suit.

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

Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional School District is a public school
district with its office in Woodstown, New Jersey.

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

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

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

MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Settlement Claim Form Deadline Set Oct. 1
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that numerous class action settlements
have deadlines in October. Consumers who take action by these
deadlines could receive large payments.

If you are eligible for any of the settlements listed below, be
sure to take action before the related deadline to ensure you get
paid!

Mercedes-Benz, Sprinter $789M BlueTEC Emissions Class Action
Settlement
Mercedes-Benz and Bosch agreed to pay over $789 million to resolve
claims that certain Mercedes vehicles were equipped with defective
emission control systems.

The settlement benefits current and former owners or lessees of
certain Mercedes-Benz BlueTEC vehicles. A full list of included
vehicles and model years can be found on the settlement website.

According to plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, Mercedes
equipped its vehicles with Bosch emission control systems that
caused vehicles to emit more nitrogen oxides than what is permitted
by state and federal regulations. Consumers say they were misled by
emissions representations from Mercedes and wouldn't have paid as
much for the vehicles if they knew the truth about the vehicles'
emissions performance.

To receive benefits from the settlement, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Oct. 1, 2022, for current owners and lessees.
The deadline for former owners and lessees passed on July 12,
2021.

British Airways Canceled Flights Class Action Settlement
British Airways agreed to a class action settlement to resolve
claims that it issued vouchers instead of refunds for flights
canceled due to COVID-19.

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased a ticket for a
British Airways flight that was canceled between March 1, 2020, and
Dec. 31, 2021. In order to be eligible for the settlement,
customers must not have canceled the flight, failed to show up,
received a refund or rebooking or used a voucher from British
Airways for the canceled flight.

British Airways was one of many airlines forced to cancel flights
due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, unlike other airlines,
British Airways allegedly refused to provide cash refunds to
customers and instead provided vouchers for future travels.
Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit argue these vouchers were
unlawful because customers should have been able to receive
refunds.

To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Oct. 3, 2022, if they received a notice ID that
starts with BRA1 or Oct. 25, 2022 if they received a notice ID that
starts with BRA2.

Roundup®, HDX®, Ace® Weed Killer False Advertising $45M Class
Action Settlement
Monsanto agreed to pay $45 million to resolve claims it failed to
disclose potential health risks of Roundup to consumers.

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased various Roundup,
HDX or Ace weed killer products. A full list of included products
and related class periods can be found on the settlement website.

This settlement only resolves false advertising claims and does not
cover injuries or illness resulting from Roundup use.

Roundup's active ingredient glyphosate has been linked by studies
to serious health risks, such as cancer. Plaintiffs in the false
advertising class action lawsuit claim Monsanto should have warned
consumers of these risks. If consumers knew the truth about Roundup
health risks, they may not have purchased the products, the class
action contends.

To receive a payment from the settlement, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Oct. 19, 2022.

Enfamil Formula False Advertising $8.4M Class Action Settlement
Mead Johnson & Co. agreed to pay $8.4 million to resolve claims it
advertised Enfamil baby formula with inflated serving counts.

The settlement benefits individuals who purchased certain Enfamil
baby formula products between Jan. 1, 2017, and June 23, 2022. A
full list of eligible products can be found on the settlement
website.

According to the Enfamil class action lawsuit, Mead Johnson
inflated the number of servings that each of its products could
make. In reality, based on the listed instructions for preparation
and use, Enfamil products allegedly make 8.9% to 10.2% fewer
servings than promised on product packaging. Consumers say they
wouldn't have paid as much for Enfamil products if they knew the
truth about how many servings each container could make.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Oct. 31, 2022.

Nexium, Diovan, Valcyte Price Fixing $145M Class Action Settlement
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Ranbaxy agreed to pay a combined
$145 million to resolve claims that they conspired to raise and fix
the price of Nexium, Diovan and Valcyte.

The settlement benefits several classes of consumers who purchased
generic Nexium, brand or generic Diovan and/or brand or generic
Valcyte between Sept. 28, 2012, and April 1, 2020. Each class is
associated with its own restrictions on dates and state residency.
A full list of included consumers can be found on the settlement
website.

Sun Pharmaceutical and Ranbaxy allegedly conspired together to
raise the prices of Nexium, Diovan and Valcyte. The companies
allegedly submitted fraudulent data in order to secure tentative
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and exclusivity
status that allowed the companies to prevent other generic
competitors from seeking approval. These actions resulted in drug
prices that were significantly higher than they would have been in
a fair market, the antitrust class action lawsuit contends.

To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Oct. 11, 2022.

Sara Lee All Butter Pound Cake False Advertising $1M Class Action
Settlement
Sara Lee will pay $1 million to resolve allegations its "all
butter" pound cake contains other shortening ingredients.

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Sara Lee All Butter
Pound Cake products between April 27, 2017, and July 29, 2022.

According to the class action lawsuit, Sara Lee falsely advertised
its pound cake products as "all butter." In reality, these products
allegedly contained soybean oil and other shortening ingredients.
Consumers in the case say that they paid a higher price believing
that the pound cake was made with all butter and would have paid
less for the products if they knew the truth.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Oct. 1, 2022.

DuraPro Toilet Connector Class Action Settlement
A $16.5 million DuraPro class action settlement will resolve claims
certain toilet connectors are defective and can lead to property
damage.

The settlement benefits consumers who experienced property damage
as a direct result of a defective DuraPro toilet connector with a
plastic coupling nut.

Plaintiffs in the DuraPro class action lawsuit claim Interline sold
defective toilet connectors with defective coupling nuts made out
of acetal plastic. The manufacturer allegedly knew that these parts
were defective but failed to provide adequate instructions for
installation or warnings that the nuts could fail.

To receive a settlement payment for property damage, class members
must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 24, 2022. The deadline to
submit a claim for replacement passed on Oct. 23, 2022.

CentralSquare Data Breach $1.9M Class Action Settlement
CentralSquare agreed to pay $1.9 million to resolve claims it
failed to prevent a data breach that impacted customers using the
Click2Gov payment portal for utility bills.

The settlement benefits consumers who used a credit or debit card
to make payments through the CentralSquare Click2Gov payment portal
between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2019.

In October 2017, CentralSquare announced it was the victim of a
data breach that compromised payment information gathered through
the Click2Gov portal used by public-sector utility companies. A
class action lawsuit against the company claimed CentralSquare
should have prevented the data breach by implementing reasonable
cybersecurity measures.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Oct. 24, 2022.

TransUnion OFAC Database Information Sale $9M Class Action
Settlement
TransUnion will pay $9 million to resolve claims it sold consumer
reports with inaccurate information listing individuals on the
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) terrorism list.

The settlement benefits individuals who received a letter from
TransUnion between Jan. 1 and July 26, 2011, regarding OFAC
database information.

Plaintiffs in the TransUnion class action lawsuit claim the credit
reporting bureau included erroneous OFAC list information on their
credit reports. In addition, TransUnion allegedly fails to inform
consumers about this information — denying them the opportunity
to dispute OFAC information on their reports. These actions
allegedly violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and
court decisions against the credit bureau.

To receive a payment from the settlement, class members may need to
submit a valid claim form by Oct. 17, 2022.

Next-Gen Sweepstakes Scam $30M FTC Settlement
The FTC is sending out checks from a $30 million settlement with
Next-Gen resolving claims that it ran fraudulent sweepstakes
scams.

The settlement benefits consumers who lost money as part of a
Next-Gen prize scheme in the U.S., Canada, United Kingdom and other
countries.

Next-Gen allegedly operated cash prize sweepstakes scams that took
advantage of older individuals by promising prizes of up to $2
million in exchange for a fee. Fees paid by customers ranged from
$9 to $139.99. In some cases, consumers were duped by the schemes
multiple times and paid numerous fees before they realized it was a
scam.

Class members living in the U.S, United Kingdom or Canada do not
need to take action to receive settlement benefits. Affected
customers living in other countries must submit a refund request
with the FTC by Oct. 17, 2022.

On Point Global Fraudulent Websites $102M FTC Judgment
The FTC reached a $102 million settlement with On Point Global to
resolve claims that the company operated misleading websites
intended to dupe customers. Refunds are available from this
settlement.

The settlement benefits individuals who purchased a guide from On
Point Global in 2017, 2018 or 2019 and/or who provided personal
information to the company in 2019.

On Point Global allegedly operated websites that claimed to help
customers with driver's license services and government benefits.
These websites mimicked the branding and language of reputable
government websites which misled customers into sharing their data
and making purchases, the FTC claims. Instead of receiving actual
assistance, consumers duped by On Point Global websites allegedly
received harassing marketing emails and useless information
guides.

To receive a refund, affected consumers must submit a valid claim
form by Oct. 18, 2022. [GN]

META PLATFORMS: Apple Users File Lawsuit Over Data Privacy Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kiley Grombacher of Bradley/Grombacher LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of Apple users who allege Facebook and Instagram
parent company Meta still tracks their activity on their iPhones
even though they "opted out" of tracking.

The lawsuit, filed in Federal Court, claims Meta violated the
Invasion of Privacy Act and the Wiretap Act. The plaintiffs in the
case claim they had the Facebook, Instagram or Messenger app on
their iPhones but had their private browsing activity and
communications intercepted, monitored, and recorded by the Meta
browsers.

In April of 2021, Apple introduced an iOS 14 update that required
Meta (and other apps) to obtain a user's consent before tracking
their internet activity on apps and third-party websites. According
to Facebook alone, this caused a revenue loss of $10 billion. Now,
however, the lawsuit alleges that even when users do not consent to
being tracked, Meta nevertheless tracks Facebook and Instagram
users' online activity with external third-party websites. The
lawsuit claims Meta does this by injecting JavaScript code into
those sites and when a user clicks on a web link within the
Facebook, Instagram or Messenger app, Meta automatically directs
them to in-app browsers which it monitors. This is in place of the
user's preferred or default browser.

The lawsuit alleges Meta does all of this without the user's
consent or knowledge. This activity gives Meta access to the user's
most private information including text messages, private health
details, financial information, personally identifiable information
and more.

"Meta is valued at over $80 billion, when a corporation of that
size flaunts state and federal laws, citizens have little to no
recourse," said Kiley Grombacher. "Despite previous lawsuits,
despite being taken to task by Congress, and despite public outcry,
Meta continues to abuse its users by stealing their private
information and turning anyone unsuspecting users of Facebook or
Instagram into profit centers whether the user agrees to it or
not."

The case is Larch- Miller v. Meta Platforms, Inc., U.S. District
Court California Northern District, Case No. 3:22-cv-05426. To read
the complaint, click here.

About Bradley/Grombacher LLP
When you find yourself in need of taking legal action against
another party in a dispute, turn to the attorneys at
Bradley/Grombacher for help. Our lawyers have more than 50 years of
combined experience that can be put to work to help you get the
fair and just compensation you deserve in a dispute involving
employment law, consumer law, and personal injury law.

Contact

Kiley Grombacher/Marcus Bradley - 888-418-7094. [GN]

META PLATFORMS: Faces Privacy Class Action Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Platforms Inc., the operator of Facebook, has been hit with a
class action lawsuit alleging it intercepts, monitors, and records
users' browsing activity and communications without their consent.

Plaintiffs Gabriele Willis and Kerreisha Davis filed the Meta class
action lawsuit, claiming that Meta tracked and intercepted their
browsing activity and private communications with third-party
websites without their knowledge or consent.

Willis and Davis claim they believed their communications, which
allegedly include text entries, passwords, and other personally
identifiable and confidential information, was private and would
not be intercepted or tracked by Meta.

Meta has 'track record' of privacy violations, Meta class action
says
The Meta class action lawsuit alleges that Facebook has a "track
record of pursuing profit at the expense of its users' privacy."
The plaintiffs claim Meta's business strategy involves collecting
ad revenue and engaging in data mining for profit.

Meta's business model allegedly involves connecting advertisers
with users' data, which allows Meta to maximize profits by offering
targeted advertisements.

"This business model, which depends on access to detailed
information about its users, has led Meta to violate its users'
privacy rights over many years through its use of plug-ins,
cookies, Facebook Beacon, the Facebook Like Button, Facebook Pixel,
and other data mining tactics," the Meta class action lawsuit
says.

Meta class action says company injects JavaScript code to evade
privacy restrictions and track users' activities
When a Facebook app user clicks on a link to an external website,
Meta reroutes the user to an in-app web browser instead of the
device's default web browser, which enables Meta to monitor the
user's interactions, the Meta class action lawsuit alleges.

The plaintiffs claim that Facebook began injecting JavaScript code
into its in-app browsers to allow it to manipulate third-party
websites and track users' activities. The JavaScript code also
allegedly enables Facebook to evade Apple iOS privacy restrictions
that were implemented in April 2021 and required app makers to
obtain users' informed consent before tracking their outside
activities.

Meta does not notify Facebook users about this tracking activity,
which it also allegedly imposes on users who have opted out of
being tracked, the plaintiffs say.

Another Meta class action lawsuit was filed recently with similar
allegations that Meta uses the JavaScript injection as a workaround
to evade Apple iOS privacy restrictions.

The plaintiffs are represented by Adam E. Polk, Jordan Elias, Simon
S. Grille, and Kimberly Macey of Girard Sharp LLP.

The Meta privacy class action lawsuit is Gabriele Willis, et al. v.
Meta Platforms Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-05376, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. [GN]

MICHELS PACIFIC: Bravo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bravo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MICHELS PACIFIC ENERGY, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 220V403427 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Santa Clara, Sept. 26, 2022), is brought under the California
Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order
against the Defendant's failure to properly pay minimum and
overtime wages for all hours worked.

The Defendants hired the Plaintiff but failed to properly pay them
all overtime wages and minimum wages for all hours worked, failed
to provide all meal and rest breaks to which they were entitled,
failed to timely pay wages upon termination of employment, failed
to provide accurate wage statements, failed to reimburse necessary
business-related expenses, and failed to adhere to other related
protections afforded by the California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Project
Coordinator from May 2021 to April 2022.

MICHELS PACIFIC ENERGY, INC. was and is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
          Miriam Schimmel, Esq.
          Joana Fang, Esq.
          BLACKSTONE LAW
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 622-4278
          Fax: (855) 786-6356
          Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
                 jgenish@blackstonepc.com
                 jfang@blackstonepc.com


MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: Appeals Prelim Injunction Order in Balow
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan State University, et al., are appealing a preliminary
injunction ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Sophia Balow, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. Michigan State University, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-44, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

The appellate case is captioned Michigan State University, et al.
v. Sophia Balow, et al., Case No. 22-1790, filed in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on September 8, 2022.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
members of Michigan State University's women's swimming-and-diving
team, brought this class action suit against the Defendants for
alleged violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
by the university's elimination of its men's and women's
swimming-and-diving teams.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan had
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction
preventing the elimination of the women's swimming-and-diving team
after finding that the Plaintiffs had not established a likelihood
of success on the merits.

Plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Sixth Circuit in the
appellate case styled Michigan State University, et al.,
Petitioners vs. Sophia Balow, et al., Case No. 21-1183.

On February 1, 2022, the Sixth Circuit overturned the District
Court's decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

The Defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which the
Sixth Circuit denied on March 31, 2022.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
filed a petition for writ of certiorari on July 29, 2022, which was
assigned case number 22-93, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review
the judgment of the Sixth Circuit.

Defendants also asked the District Court to stay the proceedings
pending the Supreme Court's ruling on their appeal.

On August 8, 2022, District Judge Hala Y. Jarbou entered an Opinion
and Order granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction. According to Judge Jarbou, "On balance, the factors
weigh in favor of a preliminary injunction, though not in the form
requested by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs ask the Court to reinstate
their team immediately. [Michigan State University], on the  other
hand, asks the Court to have it prepare a compliance plan within 90
days, should the Court find that preliminary relief is warranted."

Judge Jarbou required Michigan State University to submit a
compliance plan to reduce or eliminate the existing participation
gap for women. He further declined to stay the proceedings saying,
"that would amount to a denial of all relief."

"This case can proceed while Defendants pursue their appeal," Judge
Jarbou ruled.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., are
represented by:

          Scott Robert Eldridge, Esq.
          MILLER CANFIELD
          1 Michigan Avenue Suite 900
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 487-2070

Plaintiffs-Appellees SOPHIA BALOW, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          Lori Bullock, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER
          309 E. Fifth Street Suite 202 B
          Ankeny, IA 50023

MIDWEST DIVISION: Marquez Wins in Part Bid for Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMMIE MARQUEZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MIDWEST DIVISION MMC,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-2362-DDC-ADM (D. Kan.), Judge
Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas issued a Memorandum and Order:

   a. granting in part and denying in part without prejudice the
      Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order Certifying Class and
      Collective Action for Purposes of Settlement, Preliminarily
      Approving Class and Collective Action Settlement, Directing
      Notice to the Class, Appointing Class Counsel, and
      Scheduling Final Approval Hearing; and

   b. denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
      for Approval of Attorneys' Fees Award, Litigation Costs,
      Settlement Administrator and Class Representative Service
      Awards.

The Plaintiffs are registered nurses (RNs) who worked for entities
affiliated with HCA Healthcare. They have sued four entities: (1)
Midwest Division-MMC, LLC (an entity who owns and operates Menorah
Medical Center); (2) HealthTrust Workforce Solutions, LLC (a
staffing company who provides RNs to various hospitals and
healthcare facilities, including Menorah); (3) Health Midwest
Ventures Group, Inc. (an entity who used to operate the Market
Resource Float Pool -- a pool of RNs who served various affiliates
in the Kansas City area); and (4) Health Midwest Medical Group,
Inc. (who, the Defendants contend, the Plaintiffs named in this
lawsuit by mistake).

On July 3, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit. Three named
plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated. They are: (1) Marquez, who used to work as an
RN for HealthTrust Workforce Solutions, LLC and Health Midwest
Ventures Group, Inc.; (2) Neesha Perez, who used to work as an RN
for Defendants HealthTrust Workforce Solutions, LLC and Health
Midwest Ventures Group, Inc.; and (3) Josiah Chumba, who used to
work as an RN at Menorah Medical Center, but was directly employed
by Defendant Midwest Division-MMC, LLC.

Plaintiffs Marquez and Perez seek to serve as representative
plaintiffs for a putative class of similarly-situated RNs, who
worked for HealthTrust Workforce Solutions, LLC and Health Midwest
Ventures Group, Inc. at Menorah Medical Center during the relevant
time period. And, Chumba seeks to serve as the representative
plaintiff for a putative class of similarly situated RNs who
defendant Midwest Division-MMC directly employed during the
relevant time period.

The crux of the Second Amended Complaint's allegations asserts that
the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiffs, and other
similarly situated employees, for all the time they worked during
their employment. Specifically, they allege that the Defendants
edited their time records by entering a computerized system that
tracks the exact times that employees clock-in and clock-out of
work and changing the clock-in and clock-out times to reflect --
inaccurately -- that employees had worked less time than they
actually had worked. They assert that the Defendants made these
changes to their time records, as well as other similarly situated
employees' time records, thereby producing time records that
reflect inaccurate clock-in, clock-out, and lunch break times.

And, the Plaintiffs allege, as a result of the Defendants' practice
of changing employee time records, the Defendants have failed to
compensate them and the other similarly situated employees properly
for all of the time that they actually worked for the Defendants.
Their Second Amended Complaint asserts that the Defendants' failure
to pay them -- and other similarly situated employees -- for all
hours that they worked violates the FLSA, KWPA, and Kansas common
law. The Defendants filed separate Answers to the Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint, denying the Plaintiffs' allegations.

The Defendants deny the Plaintiffs' allegations that their
time-keeping practices violated federal or Kansas law. Also, they
assert that Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act
(LMRA), 29 U.S.C. Section 185, preempts the Kansas state law claims
asserted by RNs employed by Midwest Division-MMC, LLC because their
employment is subject to the terms of a Collective Bargaining
Agreement.

The Plaintiffs bring class and collective action claims against the
Defendants for unpaid compensation and related penalties and
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201-19, and the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA), Kan. Stat.
Ann. Sections 44-313-44-327. Also, they assert class action claims
for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims under Kansas common
law.

After the parties engaged in informal and formal discovery and
engaged the services of a third-party neutral mediator, they
reached an agreement to settle the action on a hybrid Rule 23 class
and FLSA collective action basis. The Plaintiffs have filed: (1) an
Unopposed Motion for Order Certifying Class and Collective Action
for Purposes of Settlement, Preliminarily Approving Class and
Collective Action Settlement, Directing Notice to the Class,
Appointing Class Counsel, and Scheduling Final Approval Hearing,
and (2) an Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees Award,
Litigation Costs, Settlement Administrator and Class Representative
Service Awards. They ask the court to enter an Order (1) certifying
the Plaintiffs' class and collective action claims for purposes of
settlement, (2) preliminarily approving the parties' proposed class
and collective action settlement, (3) approving the form and manner
of notice, (4) appointing class counsel, (5) scheduling hearing
date for final settlement approval, and (6) approving an attorneys'
fee award, litigation costs, settlement administrator fees, and
class representative service awards.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify under Rule 23 a KWPA
settlement-only class defined as, "all hourly Registered Nurses who
performed work for Defendants at Menorah Medical Center between
July 3, 2016 and Feb. 28, 2019." They also ask to certify
conditionally a settlement-only class under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) of the FLSA. They propose a putative class defined as, "all
hourly Registered Nurses who performed work for Defendants at
Menorah Medical Center between July 3, 2016 and Feb. 28, 2019."

The parties' Settlement Agreement includes an agreement by the
Defendants to pay a maximum, total Global Settlement Fund of $1.8
million, to resolve the matter fully. The Global Settlement Fund
includes: (1) all settlement awards to participating class members;
(2) any service awards to the named Plaintiffs that the Court
approves; (3) payment to the Plaintiffs' counsel for any amounts of
attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs that the court approves; and
(4) payment for settlement administration costs. After deducting
amounts for any approved service awards, attorneys' fees, and
Settlement Administrator's fees and expenses from the Global
Settlement Fund, the remaining funds will comprise the Net
Settlement Fund. The Net Settlement Fund will represent the amount
available to distribute for the settlement class members' awards
based on their KWPA class and FLSA collective action claims.

The Plaintiffs seek -- and the Defendants don't oppose -- an
attorneys' fee award amounting to 30% of the Global Settlement
Fund. This proportion equals $540,000. Also, the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to approve $2,100 litigation cost and a total of $36,000 in
service awards to the named Plaintiffs ($18,000 to Chumba, $11,000
to Marquez, and $7,000 to Perez). The parties' Settlement Agreement
provides that, if the Court declines to approve any of the
requested amounts for attorneys' fees or costs, Service Awards, or
Settlement Administration costs, the parties must reallocate those
amounts to the Net Settlement Fund for payment to participating
class members via their settlement awards.

The parties have agreed to a proposed Plan of Allocation. It would
pay each class member a pro rata settlement share of designated
FLSA Allocated Funds and designated KWPA Allocated Funds for their
class cohort (which is determined based on the entity who employed
the class member).

Using the damages calculation model crafted by the Plaintiffs'
counsel, the counsel estimates that class members who worked for
Midwest Division-MMC, LLC had a total of about $642,000 in alleged
straight time damages and $476,000 in alleged overtime damages.
And, using the same damages calculation model, the Plaintiffs'
counsel calculated that class members who worked for HealthTrust
Workforce Solutions, LLC and Health Midwest Ventures Group, Inc.
had a total of about $151,000 in alleged straight time damages and
$49,000 in alleged overtime damages.

The Plaintiffs' counsel then used the estimated damages
calculations to formulate a proposed Plan of Allocation that takes
into account relevant and differing facts among the class members.
The parties calculate that the Proposed Plan of Allocation produces
an average total settlement award of about $1,800 for class members
who worked for Midwest Division-MMC, LLC and an average total
settlement award of about $575 for class members who worked for
HealthTrust Workforce Solutions, LLC and Health Midwest Ventures
Group, Inc. Also, the Plan of Allocation provides that any class
member with estimated alleged damages resulting in a pro rata
settlement share of less than $20 automatically will receive a
minimum settlement award recovery of $20.

To prevent participating class members from receiving a windfall
from redistributing unclaimed settlement funds, the parties have
agreed to cap any reallocation or redistribution of unclaimed
settlement funds to an amount not exceeding "a certain percentage
of class members' individual, total alleged liquidated, overtime
and/or alleged straight time damages" as plaintiffs' counsel has
calculated. After that, they have agreed to distribute 50% of any
remaining amounts of unclaimed settlement funds to cy pres
recipient, the HCA Hope Fund, which is "a 501(c)(3) organization
that provides emergency funds to employees of hospitals, medical
facilities, and other entities affiliated with HCA Healthcare (such
as Menorah) when significant hardships arise due to illness,
injury, natural disasters or other difficult situations that impact
employees' essential needs." And, the parties have agreed that the
remaining 50% of unclaimed settlement funds will revert to the
Defendants.

Judge Crabtree holds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
requirements of both Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). Thus, he grants the
Plaintiffs' request to certify a Rule 23 settlement-only class for
their KWPA claims and defines that class as: "all hourly Registered
Nurses who performed work for Defendants at Menorah Medical Center
between July 3, 2016 and Feb. 28, 2019." And, he appoints Marquez,
Perez, and Chumba as the class representatives.

The Plaintiffs ask the court to appoint Mary Katherine Paulus and
Jessica M. McDowell of Cornerstone Law Firm as class counsel. Based
on the Plaintiffs' submissions, Judge Crabtree finds that the Rule
23(g)(1)(A) criteria are satisfied. So, he appoints Mary Katherine
Paulus and Jessica M. McDowell of Cornerstone Law Firm as the class
counsel.

The Plaintiffs have come forward with substantial allegations that
putative class members were victims of single policy of defendants.
Thus, Judge Crabtree grants their request to certify conditionally
an FLSA collective action. He certifies, conditionally, a
settlement-only class under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the FLSA
and defines it as, "all hourly Registered Nurses who performed work
for Defendants at Menorah Medical Center between July 3, 2016 and
Feb. 28, 2019."

Having provided an overview of the parties' proposed class and
collective action settlement, including their proposed Plan of
Allocation of the Net Settlement Funds, Judge Crabtree evaluates
whether preliminarily approving the proposed settlement comports
with Rule 23 and the FLSA. He declines to approve preliminarily the
parties' proposed FLSA settlement.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs don't provide any authority
permitting the Court to approve the broad, general release as
consideration for the Defendants' agreement not to contest the
service awards. He won't approve the portion of the agreement that
identifies the named Plaintiffs' general release as consideration
for the service award, so he can't approve the requested service
awards on the current record. The Plaintiffs also haven't shown
that the proposed settlement award is fair and equitable, approving
any request for attorneys' fees and costs and for the Settlement
Administrator Costs is premature at this time.

Thus, Judge Crabtree denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
request for attorneys' fees and costs. They may renew their motion
if they move the Court to approve an amended settlement agreement
that addresses the concerns that the court has raised about the
parties' current Settlement Agreement.

Next, Judge Crabtree addresses the Plaintiffs' request to approve
the KWPA settlement under Rule 23. He declines to approve
preliminarily the parties' proposed settlement under Rule 23(e),
for the same reasons that he declines to approve preliminarily the
settlement under the FLSA. He says, he can't find the proposed
Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Specifically, he can't discern whether the settlement "treats class
members equitably relative to each other," because it contains the
named Plaintiffs' broad release which serves as consideration for
the Defendants' agreement not to contest their requested service
awards.

As a consequence, Judge Crabtree denies without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' request that the Court approves the settlement
preliminarily under Rule 23(e). The Plaintiffs may renew their
request if they move the court to approve an amended settlement
agreement.

As already explained, Judge Crabtree has certified for settlement
purposes a Rule 23 class action and an FLSA collective action. The
FLSA requires plaintiffs to join a collective action by opting in
to the lawsuit. The class members have not yet received any notice
of the class action or the proposed settlement. Thus, Judge
Crabtree must direct that they receive "the best notice that is
practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to
all members who can be identified through reasonable effort." Also,
the proposed Notice and Claim form contains the information
required by Rules 23(c)(2)(B) and (e). Thus, the Court is prepared
to approve the Notice and Claim Form if the parties submit an
amended Settlement Agreement that secures its preliminary approval
of the settlement.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Crabtree grants in part the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order Certifying Class and
Collective Action for Purposes of Settlement, Preliminarily
Approving Class and Collective Action Settlement, Directing Notice
to the Class, Appointing Class Counsel, and Scheduling Final
Approval Hearing, and also denies the motion in part.

Specifically, he grants the Plaintiffs' requests: to certify a Rule
23 class action for settlement purposes; to certify conditionally
an FLSA collective action for settlement purposes; to appoint
Marquez, Perez, and Chumba as class representatives; and to appoint
Mary Katherine Paulus and Jessica M. McDowell of Cornerstone Law
Firm as class counsel.

But, Judge Crabtree denies without prejudice to refiling the
requests to approve preliminarily the parties' proposed settlement,
direct notice to the class, and schedule a Final Approval Hearing.

Consistent with his Order, Judge Crabtree certifies a Rule 23
settlement-only class for the Plaintiffs' KWPA claims and certifies
conditionally a settlement-only class under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) of the FLSA, defined as: "all hourly Registered Nurses who
performed work for Defendants at Menorah Medical Center between
July 3, 2016 and Feb. 28, 2019."

Also, Judge Crabtree denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees Award, Litigation
Costs, Settlement Administrator and Class Representative Service
Awards. He denies without prejudice the portion of the motion
seeking approval of the service awards because the court declines
to find that the proposed Settlement Agreement's terms governing
the service awards are fair and equitable. And, he denies without
prejudice to refiling the portion of the motion seeking approval of
attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and Settlement Administrator
costs because it is premature.

The parties must notify the Court by Oct. 20, 2022, of their
intention either to (1) file a revised settlement agreement and
supporting documentation in accordance with the Memorandum and
Order; or (2) abandon settlement and proceed to litigate this
dispute.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/55hvm63x from Leagle.com.


MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz TCPA Suit Wins Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL LENOROWITZ v.
MOSQUITO SQUAD FRANCHISING, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01922-JBA
(D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Janet Bond Arterton entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification:

   "All persons within the United States, other than any of the
   Plaintiff's counsel, who (1) received a pre-recorded voice
   message; (2) from or on behalf of the the Defendant, placed
   via the Mobile Sphere platform, (3) marketing or promoting
   the Defendant's services (4) during the time period of April
   1, 2019 to the present."

The Court said, "The Rule 23(b)(3) factors favor certification.
Damages for each individual in the putative class receiving one
pre-recorded message, including Plaintiff, are statutorily limited
to $500. Given the small statutory damages, even individuals who
know they have legal recourse are less likely to sue on their own.
Reliance on statutory damages awards alone to incentivize
individual litigants would lead to one of two suboptimal results --
either "needlessly clogging the courts with repetitious suits if
many are filed, or rewarding some law violators with liability for
only a slight amount of total damages if, as seems more likely, few
suits are filed"."

The Plaintiff Lenorowitz brings claims for damages and injunctive
relief against the Defendant Mosquito Squad under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), stemming from a ringless
pre-recorded message delivered to his voicemail inbox. Plaintiff
has moved to certify a class of approximately 9,186 others who
received the same message.

The background for this putative class action is a single ringless
message that was sent to the voicemail inboxes of Plaintiff and the
Defendant's other customers. In June 2017, Plaintiff called
Mosquito Squad seeking to sign up for its tick and mosquito control
services. He remained an active customer through September 2019. In
May 2019, the Defendant used an online platform "Slybroadcast,"
operated by MobileSphere, to send a recorded message to the
voicemail inboxes of customers advertising its "Tick and Tube
Granular" services. The Plaintiff was among 9,186 customers who
received message.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fszUpZ at no extra charge.[CC]

NATIONAL BANK: Ontario Ct. Certifies Class Suit Over Mutual Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HAVE YOU HELD UNITS OF A NATIONAL BANK OR NBI PRIVATE PORTFOLIO
MUTUAL FUND THROUGH A DISCOUNT BROKER?

The Superior Court of Justice of Ontario has certified a class
action which permits a defined group of investors (the "Class") to
pursue claims against National Bank Investments Inc. and Natcan
Trust Company ("Defendants"). It is alleged that the Defendants
paid excessive, inflated, and/or unearned trailing commissions to
Discount Brokers out of the assets of the National Bank and NBI
Private Portfolio Mutual Fund trusts. The class action claims
monetary damages on behalf of the Class. The allegations made in
the class action have not been proven and are contested by the
Defendants.

If you wish to participate in the class action, DO NOTHING.

If you do not wish to participate in the class action, be bound by
or receive any benefits from it, you must opt out by sending the
opt-out form to RicePoint Administration Inc. by December 23,
2022.

To obtain a copy of the opt-out form or for other important
information regarding the class action:

Visit
https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/mutual-fund-trailing-commissions/

Call toll-free 1 800 461 6166 ext 4399 (North America)

Call 416 594 4399 (Outside North America)

The publication of this notice was authorized by the Superior Court
of Justice of the Province of Ontario. [GN]

NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL HOOK, DAVID SEMAN,
BARBARA BROWN, LARRY ONDAKO, and JULIA ONDAKO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS,
INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, d/b/a, WOODLANDS RESORT;
NEMACOLIN, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and NWL, CO., a
Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00387-MPK (W.D. Pa.),
the Parties seek preliminary approval of the class action
Settlement Agreement, and move the Court for an order:

   1. Finding the terms and conditions of the Parties' proposed
      Settlement Agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate, and
      granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement
      so that notice of the Settlement can be provided to Class
      Members;

   2. Preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class under Rule
      23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for settlement
      purposes only, and provisionally appointing Plaintiffs as
      Class Representatives, and Joy D. Llaguno of Hook & Hook
      PLLC as Class Counsel;

   3. Approving the method of notice and the proposed Notice of
      Class Action Settlement; and

   4. Scheduling a Final Approval Hearing to consider whether to
      grant final approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SDFwvS at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joy D. Llaguno, Esq.
          HOOK & HOOK PLLC
          430 East Oakview Drive, Suite 101
          Waynesburg, PA 15370
          Telephone: (724) 802-7144
          Facsimile: (724) 802-7959
          E-mail: jllaguno@hooklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by

          William E. Blick, Esq.
          Marc Thirkell, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          707 Grant Street, Suite 3800
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 577-7400
          Facsimile: (412) 347-5461
          E-mail: wblick@grsm.com
                  mthirkell@grsm.com

NEW AILY: Faces Biao Ji Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YONG BIAO JI, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NEW AILY FOOT RELAX STATION INC and EILEEN FOOT RELAX
STATION INC, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-08196 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
25, 2022) is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Wage Theft Prevention Act and Minimum Wage Act incorporated
in the New York Labor Law, arising from various willful, malicious
and unlawful employment policies, patterns, and/or practices of the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges pursuant to FLSA that he is entitled to
recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, and/or attorney fees and costs. He also alleges pursuant
to the NYLL that he is entitled to recover from the Defendants
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread of time
wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages for failure to provide
accurate wage statements with each payment of wages, prejudgment
and post judgment interest, and reasonable attorney fees and
costs.

The Plaintiff was employed as a masseur for the Corporate Defendant
from November 1, 2016 to May 31, 2017, and again from September 2,
2018 to October 23, 2019.

New Aily Foot Relax Station Inc. operates New York-based "Foot
Relax Spa."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
          Tiffany Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com

NEW SOUTH WALES: Class Suit Mulled Over $16-Bil. WestConnex Project
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Croft, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that the $16
billion WestConnex project is being investigated for a possible
class action, after allegedly damaging tens of thousands of Sydney
homes.

Dentons is investigating a potential class action on behalf of over
65,000 residents whose homes have been impacted by land subsistence
caused by tunnelling and excavation associated with the
construction of the project, which spans from Merrylands to
Botany.

Owners of some of the 10,000 plus properties directly above or
aligned with the WestConnex motorways have said they're facing
demolishing their homes due to structural damage and have backed
the class action.

The proposed proceedings will be led by the same legal team that
won a landmark settlement from the Federal Government in 2020 for
PFAs-related chemical contamination of homes and land, including at
Williamtown, north of Newcastle -- and Dentons partner Ben Allen
said the cases held certain similarities.

"As in Williamtown, communities across Sydney have been ignored,
palmed off or simply told to go away when they raise genuine
concerns about damage and loss of property value," he said.

"And again, like Williamtown, despite residents speaking out in the
media and at parliamentary inquiries for many years, they continue
to face a coordinated wall of indifference -- this time from those
involved in the WestConnex project. Community-led class-actions are
now often the only way of tearing that wall down."

The NSW State Government has advised that any complaints about
WestConnex property damage should be directed to the contractors
building the 33 kilometre largely underground road. However, the
contractors are denying there's a problem, forcing the residents to
pay thousands in survey and legal costs to prove their individual
claims, explained WestConnex Action Group (WAG) spokesperson, Rhea
Liebmann.

"The time and cost of proving WestConnex damaged their homes is
placed on the residents' shoulders," she said.

"They're told dry weather, wet weather, cracked pipes, dripping
taps and not the massive toll road built metres under or next to
their house is responsible. Yet contractors flatly refuse to
provide any of their technical documentation to anyone including
the panel assessing damage. It's farcical and frustrated residents
have had enough of this delay and deny tactics."

Additionally, residents and the WAG Group are being denied
information on monitoring measures and systems.

"Those constructing WestConnex have made a lot of noise about
having in place a whole range of systems to monitor any potential
ground movement or damage to property. Yet when residents with
damaged properties have asked for that information, they're told
they can't have it. The independent panel assessing their claims
are told they can't have it," Mr Allen added.

"It is quite unbelievable, incredibly frustrating for residents but
it also sets a dangerous precedent. You can't tell people on one
hand you have put all possible monitoring measures in to protect
their interests and then turn around and say it's not in their
interests to know what that information is. In over two decades of
representing both plaintiffs and defendants in class actions, I
can't recall a greater challenge in trying to access
documentation."

The class action, which will be funded by Omni Bridgeway, is
currently seeking registers of interest.

"The legal team at Dentons have spent a significant amount of time
looking into both property damage and diminution of value for
properties associated with WestConnex. We take a cautious and
considered approach but every month we're uncovering more issues of
serious concern," Mr Allen said.

"We also know that some community members feel isolated, helpless,
or afraid to speak up. The reality is there is a window in which a
class action can be launched in Australia, and many will risk
losing potential compensation if they later decide to take legal
action for worsening damage." [GN]

NEW YORK THERAPEUTIC: Edmond Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL EDMOND, JENNIFER MITCHUM, DONNA PICKERSGILL-BROWN, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, and LISA ABBAS,
Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITIES INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05712-AMD-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2022) arises
from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law by failing to provide Plaintiffs premium
overtime pay after regularly working over 40 hours a week.

Plaintiffs Edmond, Mitchum, and Pickersgill-Brown were employed by
Defendant as counselors from April 6, 2020 through September 24,
2021, from April 30, 2018 through June 2021, and from July 2014
through February 2018, respectively. Plaintiff Abbas was employed
by Defendant as a peer advocate from approximately July 2021
through November 2021.

New York Therapeutic Communities Inc. operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization provides services to people with
criminal background for a healthy, positive lifestyle free of crime
and drugs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Tana Forrester, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          KESSLER MATURA P.C.
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
                  tforrester@kesslermatura.com
                  gkaske@kesslermatura.com

NHK SPRING: Parties Stipulate on Amended Briefing Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as re: Hard Disk Drive
Suspension Assemblies, Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC, Case No.
3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate regarding
amended briefing schedule on end-user and reseller plaintiffs'
motions for class certification.

   1. Class Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and
      expert reports in support of class certification will be
      due on October 11, 2022;

   2. The Defendants' Oppositions to Motions for Class
      Certification and expert reports in opposition to class
      certification will be due on December 20, 2022; and

   3. Class Plaintiffs' Replies and expert rebuttal reports in
      support of their Motions for Class Certification will be
      due on February 28, 2023.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dH4Mm9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1230
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
          E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com

               - and -

          William V. Reiss, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          1325 Avenue of Americas, Suite 2601
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: wreiss@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Victoria Sims, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6518
          Facsimile: (651) 789-4818
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

The Counsel for the Defendants NHK Spring Co., Ltd., NHK
International Corporation, NHK Spring (Thailand) Co., Ltd., NAT
Peripheral (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., and NAT Peripheral (H.K.) Co.,
Ltd., are:

The Defendants are represented by

          Mark H. Hamer, Esq.
          BAKER MCKENZIE LLP
          815 Connecticut Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 452-7077
          Facsimile: (202) 416-7177
          E-mail: mark.hamer@bakermckenzie.com

               - and -

          J. Clayton Everett, Jr.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 739-5860
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: clay.everett@morganlewis.com

NOMI HEALTH: Eltahir Loses Bid for Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAA ELTAHIR, v. NOMI
HEALTH, INC.; et al., Eltahir v. NOMI HEALTH, INC. et al., Case No.
0:22-cv-61046-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga
entered an order denying the Plaintiff Alaa Eltahir's motion for
Collective Action.

The Court said, "the Plaintiff has not justified conditional
certification of an FLSA collective action in either factual or
practical terms. There is therefore no need to determine whether
Plaintiff's proposed notice of the action to potential class
members is appropriate."

The Plaintiff brings this putative collective action for
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). In her First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants failed to pay her and other licensed practical
nurses, registered nurses, and medical assistants who worked in
Florida FLSA-required overtime between September of 2020 and June
of 2022.

In her Motion, she seeks conditional certification of an FLSA
collective that she defines as:

   "All hourly workers employed by NOMI HEALTH, INC. and/or
   MEDIX STAFFING INC. between September 1, 2020 and June 1,
   2022 in the positions of Registered Nurses (RNs), Licensed
   Practical Nurses (LPNs), Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs),
   or Medical Assistants (MAs) who worked over 40 hours in a
   workweek and did not receive overtime payments at time and
   one half their hourly rate for each hour worked over forty."

Nomi Health is a healthcare services provider that supports medical
testing & self-insured healthcare plan administration.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R6SeBT at no extra charge.[CC]

NOVO NORDISK: Chaires, et al., Seek to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAIRES et al, v. NOVO
NORDISK INC. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00699-BRM-ESK (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following classes under
Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3):

   -- NATIONWIDE CLASSES

      The Plaintiffs move for certification of two nationwide
      classes for "unconscionable" acts under the New Jersey
      Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. section 56:8-1 et seq.

      1. Nationwide class against defendant Novo Nordisk Inc.:

         "All individual persons in the United States and its
         territories who paid any portion of the purchase price
         for any prescription of Fiasp, Fiasp Flextouch,
         Levemir,Levemir Flextouch, Novolog, Novolog Flexpen,
         NovologFlexpen Mix 70/30, Novolog Mix 70/30, or Tresiba
         at a price calculated by reference to a list price, AWP
         (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale
         Acquisition Price) for purposes other than resale.

         For Fiasp, the class period is from December 1, 2017,
         through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Fiasp Flextouch, the class period is from January
         1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Levemir, the class period is from July 1, 2016,
         through the date on which the class is certified."

         For Levemir Flextouch, the class period is from April
         1, 2016, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Novolog Flexpen, the class period is from October
         1, 2014, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Novolog and Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, the
         class period is from January 1, 2015, through the date
         on which the class is certified.

         For Novolog Mix 70/30, the class period is from April
         1,2015, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Tresiba and Tresiba Flextouch, the class period is
         from November 1, 2016, through the date on which the
         class is certified.

         The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of plaintiffs
         Carole Andrew, Michael Carfagno, and Barry Hunsinger as
         Class Representatives for this class.

      2. Nationwide class against defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
         LLC:

         "All individual persons in the United States and its
         territories who paid any portion of the purchase price
         for any prescription of Lantus, Lantus Solostar, Toujeo
         Solostar, or Toujeo Maxsolostar at a price calculated
         by reference to a list price, AWP (Average Wholesale
         Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for
         purposes other than resale."

         For Lantus, the class period is from April 1, 2014,
         through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Lantus Solostar, the class period is from July 1,
         2014, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Toujeo Solostar, the class period is from March 1,
         2015, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Toujeo Maxsolostar, the class period is from April
         1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of plaintiff

         Carole Andrew as Class Representative for this class.

   -- MULTI-STATE CLASSES

      The Plaintiffs move for certification of three multi-state
      classes for "unfair" acts.

      1. Multi-state class against defendant Eli Lilly and
         Company ("Lilly"):

         "All individual persons in Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
         Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
         Massachusetts, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
         or Tennessee who paid any portion of the purchase price
         for any prescription of Humalog, Humalog Jr. Kwikpen,
         Humalog Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen 50/50, Humalog
         Kwikpen 75/25, Humalog Mix 50/50, Humalog Mix 75/25, or
         Basaglar Kwikpen at a price calculated by reference to
         a list price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC
         (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other than
         resale."

         For Humalog Kwikpen, the class period is from January
         1, 2013, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Humalog, Humalog Jr. Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen
         50/50, Humalog Kwikpen 75/25, Humalog Mix 50/50, and
         Humalog Mix 75/25, the class period is from January 1,
         2014, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Basaglar Kwikpen, the class period is from December
         1, 2016, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         The Plaintiffs move for appointment of the following
         plaintiffs as Class Representatives for this class:
         Donald Douthit (Colorado); Barbara Johnson and Tremayne
         Sirmons (Florida); Adam Levett (Illinois); Marie
         Saffran and Scott Dercks (Indiana); Richard Knauss
         (Iowa); Robyn Rushing (Louisiana); Molly Thompson
         (Maine); Brian Phair (Maryland); Sheila Cooney
         (Massachusetts); Jake Knaack (North Dakota); Clayton
         McCook (Oklahoma); Jonathan Rollins (South Carolina);
         and Tyler Campbell (Tennessee).

      2. Multi-state class against defendant Novo:

         "All individual persons in Connecticut, Delaware,
         Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine,
         Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
         Carolina, or Tennessee who paid any portion of the
         purchase price for any prescription of Fiasp, Fiasp
         Flextouch, Levemir, Levemir Flextouch, Novolog, Novolog
         Flexpen, Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, Novolog Mix 70/30,
         or Tresiba at a price calculated by reference to a list
         price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC
         (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other than
         resale. For Fiasp, the class period is from December 1,
         2017, through the date on which the class is certified.
         For Fiasp Flextouch, the class period is from January
         1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Levemir, the class period is from July 1, 2016,
         through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Levemir Flextouch, the class period is from April
         1, 2016, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Novolog Flexpen, the class period is from October
         1, 2014, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Novolog and Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, the class
         period is from January 1, 2015, through the date on
         which the class is certified.

         For Novolog Mix 70/30, the class period is from April
         1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Tresiba and Tresiba Flextouch, the class period is
         from November 1, 2016, through the date on which the
         class is certified.

         The Plaintiffs move for appointment of the following
         plaintiffs as Class Representatives for this class:
         Samantha Jensen (Connecticut); Ann Marie Jordan
         (Delaware); Ann Marie Jordan, Anne Olinger, and
         Tremayne Sirmons (Florida); Andre Arnold and Adam
         Levett (Illinois); Mary Bobo and Arthur Janz (Indiana);
         Richard Knauss (Iowa); Terry Brewster (Louisiana);
         Molly Thompson (Maine); Donald Chaires (Massachusetts);
         Donna Miller (North Carolina); Melinda Bell, Clayton
         McCook, and Shannon Meadows (Oklahoma); Jonathan
         Rollins (South Carolina); and Tyler Campbell
         (Tennessee).

      3. Multi-state class against defendant Sanofi:

         "All individual persons in Colorado, Connecticut,
         Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana,
         Massachusetts, North Carolina, or Oklahoma who paid
         any portion of the purchase price for any prescription
         of Lantus, Lantus Solostar, Toujeo Solostar, or Toujeo
         Maxsolostar at a price calculated by reference to a
         list price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC
         (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other than
         resale."

         For Lantus, the class period is from April 1, 2014,
         through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Lantus Solostar, the class period is from July 1,
         2014, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Toujeo Solostar, the class period is from March 1,
         2015, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Toujeo Maxsolostar, the class period is from April
         1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         The Plaintiffs move for appointment of the following
         plaintiffs as Class Representatives for this class:
         Donald Douthit (Colorado); Samantha Jensen
         (Connecticut); Ann Marie Jordan (Delaware); Ritch Hoard
         and Ann Marie Jordan (Florida); Andre Arnold and Adam
         Levett (Illinois); Marie Saffran, Scott Dercks, and
         Arthur Janz (Indiana); Richard Knauss (Iowa); Terry
         Brewster (Louisiana); Donald Chaires, Sheila Cooney,
         and Sara Hasselbach (Massachusetts); Donna Miller
         (North Carolina); and Melinda Bell, Clayton McCook, and
         Shannon Meadows (Oklahoma).

   -- SINGLE-STATE CLASSES FOR VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY LAW

      The Plaintiffs seek certification of three single-state
      classes for "unconscionable" acts under the New Jersey
      Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. Section  56:8-1 et
      seq.

      1. New Jersey class against defendant Lilly:

         "All individual persons in New Jersey who paid any
         portion of the purchase price for any prescription of
         Humalog, Humalog Jr. Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen, Humalog
         Kwikpen 50/50, Humalog Kwikpen 75/25, Humalog Mix
         50/50, Humalog Mix 75/25, or Basaglar Kwikpen at a
         price calculated by reference to a list price, AWP
         (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale
         Acquisition Price) for purposes other than resale."

         For Humalog Kwikpen, the class period is from January
         1, 2013, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Humalog, Humalog Jr. Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen
         50/50, Humalog Kwikpen 75/25, Humalog Mix 50/50, and
         Humalog Mix 75/25, the class period is from January 1,
         2014, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Basaglar Kwikpen, the class period is from December
         1, 2016, through the date on which the class is
         certified

         The Plaintiffs move for appointment of Carole Andrew
         and Barry Hunsinger as Class Representatives for this
         class.

      2. New Jersey class against defendant Novo:

         "All individual persons in New Jersey who paid any
         portion of the purchase price for any prescription of
         Fiasp, Fiasp Flextouch, Levemir, Levemir Flextouch,
         Novolog, Novolog Flexpen, Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30,
         Novolog Mix 70/30, or Tresiba at a price calculated by
         reference to a list price, AWP (Average Wholesale
         Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for
         purposes other than resale.

         For Fiasp, the class period is from December 1, 2017,
         through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Fiasp Flextouch, the class period is from January
         1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Levemir, the class period is from July 1, 2016,
         through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Levemir Flextouch, the class period is from April
         1, 2016, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Novolog Flexpen, the class period is from October
         1, 2014, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Novolog and Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, the class
         period is from January 1, 2015, through the date on
         which the class is certified.

         For Novolog Mix 70/30, the class period is from April
         1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Tresiba and Tresiba Flextouch, the class period is
         from November 1, 2016, through the date on which the
         class is certified.

         The Plaintiffs move for appointment of plaintiffs
         Carole Andrew, Michael Carfagno, and Barry Hunsinger as
         Class Representatives for this class.

      3. New Jersey class against defendant Sanofi:

         "All individual persons in New Jersey who paid any
         portion of the purchase price for any prescription of
         Lantus, Lantus Solostar, Toujeo Solostar, or Toujeo
         Maxsolostar at a price calculated by reference to a
         list price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC
         (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other than
         resale."

         For Lantus, the class period is from April 1, 2014,
         through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Lantus Solostar, the class period is from July 1,
         2014, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Toujeo Solostar, the class period is from March 1,
         2015, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Toujeo Maxsolostar, the class period is from April
         1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         The Plaintiffs move for appointment of plaintiff Carole
         Andrew as Class Representative for this class.

   -- SINGLE-STATE CLASSES FOR VIOLATION OF TEXAS LAW

      The Plaintiffs seek certification of three single-state
      classes for "unconscionable" acts under the Texas
      Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, Tex.
      Bus. & Com. Code section 17.41 et seq.

      1. Texas class against defendant Lilly:

         "All individual persons in Texas who paid any portion
         of the purchase price for any prescription of Humalog,
         Humalog Jr. Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen
         50/50, Humalog Kwikpen 75/25, Humalog Mix 50/50,
         Humalog Mix 75/25, or Basaglar Kwikpen at a price
         calculated by reference to a list price, AWP (Average
         Wholesale Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale Acquisition
         Price) for purposes other than resale.

         For Humalog Kwikpen, the class period is from January
         1, 2013, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Humalog, Humalog Jr. Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen
         50/50, Humalog Kwikpen 75/25, Humalog Mix 50/50, and
         Humalog Mix 75/25, the class period is from January 1,
         2014, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Basaglar Kwikpen, the class period is from December
         1, 2016, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Laura Stark
         and Bret Stewart as Class Representatives for this
         class.

      2. Texas class against defendant Novo:

         "All individual persons in Texas who paid any portion
         of the purchase price for any prescription of Fiasp,
         Fiasp Flextouch, Levemir, Levemir Flextouch, Novolog,
         Novolog Flexpen, Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, Novolog Mix
         70/30, or Tresiba at a price calculated by reference to
         a list price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC
         (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other than
         resale.

         For Fiasp, the class period is from December 1, 2017,
         through the date on which the class is certified."

         For Fiasp Flextouch, the class period is from January
         1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Levemir, the class period is from July 1, 2016,
         through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Levemir Flextouch, the class period is from April
         1, 2016, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Novolog Flexpen, the class period is from October
         1, 2014, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Novolog and Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, the class
         period is from January 1, 2015, through the date on
         which the class is certified.

         For Novolog Mix 70/30, the class period is from April
         1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Tresiba and Tresiba Flextouch, the class
         period is from November 1, 2016, through the date on
         which the class is certified.

         The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Patricia
         Dague, Laura Stark, and Bret Stewart as Class
         Representatives for this class.

      3. Texas class against defendant Sanofi:

         "All individual persons in Texas who paid any portion
         of the purchase price for any prescription of Lantus,
         Lantus Solostar, Toujeo Solostar, or Toujeo Maxsolostar
         at a price calculated by reference to a list price, AWP
         (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale
         Acquisition Price) for purposes other than resale. For
         Lantus, the class period is from April 1, 2014, through
         the date on which the class is certified.

         For Lantus Solostar, the class period is from July 1,
         2014, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Toujeo Solostar, the class period is from March 1,
         2015, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Toujeo Maxsolostar, the class period is from April
         1, 2018, through the date on which the class is

         certified.

         The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Patricia
         Dague and Bret Stewart as Class for this class.

   -- SINGLE-STATE CLASSES FOR VIOLATION OF KANSAS LAW

      The Plaintiffs seek certification of three single-state
      classes for "unconscionable" acts under the Kansas
      Consumer Protection Act, Kan. Stat. sectipn 50-623 et seq.

      1. Kansas class against defendant Novo:

         "All individual persons in Kansas who paid any portion
         of the purchase price for any prescription of Fiasp,
         Fiasp Flextouch, Levemir, Levemir Flextouch, Novolog,
         Novolog Flexpen, Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, Novolog Mix
         70/30, or Tresiba at a price calculated by reference to
         a list price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC
         (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other than
         resale.

         For Fiasp, the class period is from December 1, 2017,
         through the date on which the class is certified.

         For  Fiasp Flextouch, the class period is from January
         1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Levemir, the class period is from July 1, 2016,
         through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Levemir Flextouch, the class period is from April
         1, 2016, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Novolog Flexpen, the class period is from October
         1, 2014, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Novolog and Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, the class
         period is from January 1, 2015, through the date on
         which the class is certified.

         For Novolog Mix 70/30, the class period is from April
         1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Tresiba and Tresiba Flextouch, the class period is
         from November 1, 2016, through the date on which the
         class is certified.

         The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Kandyce
         Gunther and Susan Marsh as Class Representatives for
         this class.

      2. Kansas class against defendant Sanofi:

         "All individual persons in Kansas who paid any portion
         of the purchase price for any prescription of Lantus,
         Lantus Solostar, Toujeo Solostar, or Toujeo Maxsolostar
         at a price calculated by reference to a list price, AWP
         (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale
         Acquisition Price) for purposes other than resale.

         For Lantus, the class period is from April 1, 2014,
         through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Lantus Solostar, the class period is from July 1,
         2014, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Toujeo Solostar, the class period is from March 1,
         2015, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Toujeo Maxsolostar, the class period is from April
         1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Kandyce
         Gunther as Class Representative for this class.

   -- SINGLE-STATE CLASSES FOR VIOLATION OF UTAH LAW

      The Plaintiffs seek certification of three single-state
      classes for "unconscionable" acts under the Consumer Sale
      Practices Act, Utah Code section 13-11-1 et seq.

      1. Utah class against defendant Novo:

         "All individual persons in Utah who paid any portion of
         the purchase price for any prescription of Fiasp, Fiasp
         Flextouch, Levemir, Levemir Flextouch, Novolog, Novolog
         Flexpen, Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, Novolog Mix
         70/30, or Tresiba at a price calculated by reference to
         a list price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC
         (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other than
         resale."

         For Fiasp, the class period is from December 1, 2017,
         through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Fiasp Flextouch, the class period is from January
         1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Levemir, the class period is from July 1, 2016,
         through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Levemir Flextouch, the class period is from April
         1, 2016, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Novolog Flexpen, the class period is from October
         1, 2014, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Novolog and Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, the class
         period is from January 1, 2015, through the date on
         which the class is certified.

         For Novolog Mix 70/30, the class period is from
         April 1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         For Tresiba and Tresiba Flextouch, the class period is
         from November 1, 2016, through the date on which the
         class is certified.

         The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Dianna
         Gilmore as Class Representative for this class.

      2. Utah class against defendant Sanofi:

         "All individual persons in Utah who paid any portion of
         the purchase price for any prescription of Lantus,
         Lantus Solostar, Toujeo Solostar, or Toujeo Maxsolostar
         at a price calculated by reference to a list price, AWP
         (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale
         Acquisition Price) for purposes other than resale. For
         Lantus, the class period is from April 1, 2014, through
         the date on which the class is certified.

         For Lantus Solostar, the class period is from July 1,
         2014, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Toujeo Solostar, the class period is from March 1,
         2015, through the date on which the class is certified.

         For Toujeo Maxsolostar, the class period is from April
         1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
         certified.

         The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Dianna
         Gilmore as Class Representative for this class.

   -- EXCLUSIONS FROM ALL CLASSES

      Excluded from all proposed classes are:

      (1) purchases where a manufacturer coupon was applied; and
  
      (2) purchases (or receipt of) insulin through a Medicaid
          program.

      Also excluded from all classes are:

      (1) each defendant and any entity in which it has a
          controlling interest, and their legal representatives,
          officers, directors, assignees, and successors; and

          (2) any co-conspirators and their officers, directors,
              management, employees, subsidiaries, and
              affiliates.

   -- CLASS COUNSEL

      The Plaintiffs also move for appointment of Steve W. Berman
of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and James E. Cecchi of Carella,
Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello as Class Counsel for all
Classes, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated Sept. 20,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rdpz3N
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          Kevin Cooper, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI ,
          OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700

NU CARE: Marshall Suit Claims Unpaid Wages for Drivers/Caretakers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARRELL MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NU CARE TRANSPORT INC., NU CARE
HOME HEALTH INC., NU CARE, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 22STCV30525 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
September 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and
Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, waiting time penalties, failure to provide accurate
itemized statements, retaliation, unlawful forfeiture of paid time
off, unfair competition, and constructive trust.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a driver/caretaker
in Westminster, California from approximately January of 2018
through the present.

Nu Care Transport Inc. is a provider of home healthcare services
based in California.

Nu Care Home Health Inc. is a provider of home healthcare services
based in California.

Nu Care, Inc. is a provider of home healthcare services based in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jason D. Ahdoot, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF JASON D. AHDOOT
         16633 Ventura Blvd., Suite 555
         Encino, CA 91436
         Telephone: (310) 359-8340
         Facsimile: (310) 359-0290

                - and -

         Payam I. Aframian, Esq.
         EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS LAW FIRM
         700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (424) 444-1464
         E-mail: info@employmentrightslawfirm.com

NYC HARLEM: Dunkin' Franchisees' Settlement Rejected for 2nd Time
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a
proposed $1.3 million settlement of wage claims between Dunkin'
franchisees in New York and their employees was rejected for a
second time by a federal trial judge because the parties didn't
correct the problems he found in their first proposal.

The second settlement proposal is unreasonable, as was the first,
Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York said on Sept. 26.

Marisol Medina brought the class action alleging that her employer
and other Dunkin' franchisees violated state and federal labor
laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act. She filed the suit in
February 2021, and the first settlement proposal was rejected in
April 2022.

The current settlement isn't fair and reasonable under the FLSA,
the court said. It doesn't provide potential members of the class
an opportunity to opt into the litigation and the parties provide
no explanation why, it said.

Nor does the proposal provide the range of possible recovery for
the class members, the court said. The parties gave no damages
breakdown and didn't specify what portion of the unpaid notice,
timely pay, and uniform maintenance violations is covered by the
gross settlement amount, it said.

The parties also didn't state what Dunkins' defenses will be or
what the litigation risks are, the court said.

The agreement's termination provision may be its most troubling
element, because it allows Dunkin' to nullify the settlement if too
many class members file claims, the court said. A "class action
settlement that makes its effectuation contingent on most claims
going unrecovered and pits the interests of counsel against the
interests of the class" is unreasonable, it said.

Medina's counsel also didn't provide any documentation supporting
its attorneys' fee request, the court said.

The parties were given 21 days to either provide a revised
settlement proposal addressing the court's concerns or a joint
letter abandoning the settlement.

Bouklas Gaylord LLP represented Medina. Milber Makris Plousadis &
Seiden LLP represented the franchisees.

The case is Medina v. NYC Harlem Foods Inc., S.D.N.Y., No.
1:21-cv-1321-VSB, 9/26/22. [GN]

OLO INC: Rosen Law Reminds Nov. 28 Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 28
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Olo Inc. (NYSE: OLO) between August
11, 2021 and August 11, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than November 28, 2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Olo class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8131 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 28, 2022.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Subway was ending its contract with
Olo; (2) Olo's key business metric - active locations - could not
continue to grow as defendants touted due to the loss of Subway's
business; and (3) as a result of the above, defendants' statements
about Olo's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

To join the Olo class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8131 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

CONTACT:

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]

OPHTHOTECH CORP: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Micholle Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANK MICHOLLE, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION,
DAVID R. GUYER and SAMIR PATEL, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00210-VSB-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approves
the Lead Plaintiff's motion for approval of the Plan of
Allocation.

The matter came before the Court on Sept. 8, 2022, on the Lead
Plaintiff's motion for approval of the Plan of Allocation.

Having considered all papers filed and proceedings had therein,
Judge Broderick, pursuant to and in full compliance with Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, finds and concludes that (i)
due and adequate notice was directed to all persons who are Class
Members who could be identified with reasonable effort; (ii) the
formula for the calculation of the claims of Authorized Claimants
which is set forth in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action sent to the Class Members provides a
fair and reasonable basis upon which to allocate the proceeds of
the Net Settlement Fund established pursuant to the Stipulation
among the Class Members, with due consideration have been given to
administrative convenience and necessity; and (iii) the Plan of
Allocation, as set forth in the Notice, is, in all respects, fair
and reasonable.

For these reasons, Judge Broderick approves the Plan of
Allocation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/58nd4ex5 from Leagle.com.


OPHTHOTECH CORP: Final Judgment & Order Entered in Micholle Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York enters Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice in the case, FRANK MICHOLLE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION, DAVID R. GUYER and SAMIR PATEL, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00210-VSB-GWG (S.D.N.Y.).

The matter came before the Court pursuant to the Order Granting
Preliminary Approval Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) and
Permitting Notice to the Class dated March 17, 2022, on the
application of the parties for approval of the Settlement set forth
in the Stipulation of Settlement dated Sept. 8, 2021. Due and
adequate notice having been given to the Class as required in said
Notice Order, and the Court has considered all papers filed and
proceedings had therein.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Broderick affirms the determination in the Notice Order and finally
certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, a
Class defined as: all Persons who purchased or acquired Ophthotech
common stock during the period between March 2, 2015, through Dec.
12, 2016, inclusive (the Class Period).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, he fully and
finally approves the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all
respects (including, without limitation, the amount of the
Settlement, the Releases provided for therein, and the dismissal
with prejudice of the claims asserted against Defendants in the
Litigation). Accordingly, he authorizes and directs implementation
and performance of all the terms and provisions of the Stipulation,
as well as the terms and provisions thereof. Except as to any
individual claim of those Persons who have validly and timely
requested exclusion from the Class, he dismisses the Litigation and
all claims asserted therein with prejudice. The Settling Parties
are to bear their own costs, except as and to the extent provided
in the Stipulation and the Final Judgment and Order.

Any Plan of Allocation submitted by the Lead Counsel or any order
entered regarding any attorneys' fee and expense application will
in no way disturb or affect the Judgment and will be considered
separate from the Judgment. Separate orders will be entered
regarding approval of the Plan of Allocation and Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Judge Broderick finds that the Defendants have satisfied their
financial obligations under the Stipulation by paying or causing to
be paid $29 million to the Settlement Fund, in accordance with the
Stipulation.

Without affecting the finality of the Judgment in any way, the
Court retains continuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of
this Settlement and any award or distribution of the Settlement
Fund, including interest earned thereon; (b) disposition of the
Settlement Fund; (c) hearing and determining applications for
attorneys' fees, expenses, and interest in the Litigation; and (d)
all parties herein for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and
administering the Stipulation.

The terms of the Stipulation and of the Judgment will be forever
binding on the Defendants, the Lead Plaintiff, and all the other
Class Members (regardless of whether or not any individual Class
Member submits a Proof of Claim and Release form or seeks or
obtains a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund), as well as
their respective successors and assigns.

Without further order of the Court, the Settling Parties may agree
to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions
of the Stipulation. The Settling Parties are authorized to agree to
and adopt such amendments or modifications of the Stipulation or
any exhibits attached thereto to effectuate the Settlement that:
(a) are not materially inconsistent with this Judgment; and (b) do
not materially limit the rights of Class Members in connection with
the Settlement.

The Litigation and all Released Claims are dismissed with
prejudice. The parties are to bear their own costs, except as
otherwise agreed to in writing by the Settling Parties or as
otherwise provided in the Stipulation or Judgment.

The Court respectfully directs entry of this Judgment by the Clerk
of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2022 Final Judgment &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mssrh5zd from
Leagle.com.


OPTAVIA LLC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Douglass Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS v. OPTAVIA
LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge entered
an order granting the plaintiff's motion to certify the class for
settlement purposes and for preliminary approval of class action
settlement:

   -- The proposed Settlement Class is preliminarily certified
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes
      of settlement. The Settlement Class is defined as:

      [A] national class including all Blind or Visually
      Disabled individuals who use screen reader auxiliary aids
      to navigate digital content and who have accessed,
      attempted to access, or been deterred from attempting to
      access, or who may access, attempt to access, or be
      deterred from attempting to access, the Website from the
      United States.

   -- The Court finds that the Plaintiff Blair Douglass will
      fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
      Settlement Class. As a result, the Court appoints and
      designates Mr. Douglass as representative of the
      Settlement Class.

   -- The Court finds that attorneys Kevin Tucker and Kevin
      Abramowicz of the law firm of East End Trial Group LLC are
      experienced and competent counsel who will continue to
      fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
      Settlement Class. As a result, the Court appoints and
      designates attorneys Tucker and Abramowicz as Class
      Counsel for the Settlement Class.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Sum0BF at no extra charge.[CC]

OVERBY-SEAWELL CO: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Archer Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIANN ARCHER and PATRICK REDDY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OVERBY-SEAWELL CO. and
KEYBANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03780-SDG (N.D. Ga.,
September 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of
implied contract, violation of the Washington State Consumer
Protection Act, the New York General Business Law, and the
Information Security Breach and Notification Act.

The case arises from a data breach on Overby-Seawell Co.'s computer
systems on July 5, 2022, which resulted in the exfiltration of
highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) belonging
to thousands of current and former KeyBank clients, including the
Plaintiffs. The Defendants are responsible for allowing the data
breach because of multiple acts of negligence, including but not
limited to: (1) failure to design, implement, and maintain
reasonable data security systems and safeguards; (2) failure to
exercise reasonable care in the hiring, supervision, training, and
monitoring of its employees and agents and vendors; (3) failure to
comply with industry-standard data security practices; (4) failure
to comply with federal and state laws and regulations that govern
data security and privacy practices and are intended to protect the
type of sensitive information at issue in this action; and/or (5)
failure to design, implement and execute reasonable data retention
and destruction policies. As a result of the data breach, the
Plaintiffs and Class members suffered ascertainable losses in the
form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket
expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy
or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional distress, and the
present and certainly imminent risk of future harm caused by the
compromise of their PII, says the suit.

Overby-Seawell Co. is a provider of insurance services, with its
principal place of business at 245 TownPark Drive, Suite 200,
Kennesaw, Georgia.

Keybank, N.A. is a retail banking company, with its principal place
of business at 127 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
         THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
         3535 Piedmont Rd.
         Building 14, Suite 230
         Atlanta, GA 30305
         Telephone: (404) 978-6971
         Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
         E-mail: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com

                 - and -

         Terence R. Coates, Esq.
         Justin C. Walker, Esq.
         MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
         119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Telephone: (513) 651-3700
         Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
         E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                 jwalker@msdlegal.com

                 - and -

         M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
         CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APLC
         865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825
         Telephone: (916) 239-4778
         Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
         E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com

OVERBY-SEAWELL CO: West Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Overby-Seawell Co.,
et al. The case is styled as Joynequa West, individually and on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Overby-Seawell Co., Fulton Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-03858-SDG
(N.D. Ga., Sept. 26, 2022).

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

Overby-Seawell Company (OSC) -- https://www.oscis.com/ -- provides
insurance services and is a leading provider of compliance-driven
insurance tracking technology, products & services for lenders,
mortgage servicers property investors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP - CHICAGO, IL
          227 W Monroe St., Ste. 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          MaryBeth Vassil Gibson, Esq.
          THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
          Building 14, Suite 230
          3535 Piedmont Road
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 320-9979 ext 202
          Fax: (404) 320-9978
          Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com


PAGAYA INVESTMENTS: Cannatella Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CANNATELLA, an individual, Plaintiff v. PAGAYA INVESTMENTS
US LLC, a Delaware limited liability, company Defendant, Case No.
22SMCV01533 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 8, 2022) is a
class action arising from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to reimburse for
business expenses, engaged in unfair competition, and failed to
provide Plaintiff with accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Michael Cannatella resides in Los Angeles County,
California. He worked for the Defendant from March 2, 2020 until
approximately August 4, 2022. Plaintiff worked as a Vice President,
Origination.

Pagaya Investments US LLC manages institutional investors'
money.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Ottinger, Esq.
          Paraskevi Batsikas, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          535 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 262-0096
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
          E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com
                  paraskevi@ottingerlaw.com

PENN MUTUAL: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Clabby, Esq., of Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently
affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action against a
brokerage firm and its parent company, holding that the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) barred the action. In
Cochran v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., the Eleventh Circuit
also formally accepted case law from sister circuits that it should
look behind "artful" pleading in determining whether SLUSA bars a
class action under state law.

The plaintiff had alleged that the brokerage firm had violated
Georgia fiduciary duties by recommending that its clients purchase
variable annuities in tax-deferred accounts. The plaintiff alleged
that a variable annuity was always unsuitable for that type of
account, such as a rollover IRA, because the tax benefits of a
variable annuity had no value in an account that was already
tax-qualified. The plaintiff alleged that the brokerage firm only
recommended the annuities because of the higher fees due to the
defendants from these annuities versus a more plain-vanilla
investment, such as a low-cost index fund.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that
SLUSA barred a class action, like this one, based on state law
claims that allege material misrepresentations or omissions in
connection with the purchase or sale of a security. The Northern
District of Georgia agreed and granted the motion.

In affirming the dismissal, the Eleventh Circuit focused on the
"gravamen" of the complaint and "not on the labels the plaintiff
chooses to give his claims, and not on the artful way a plaintiff
words his allegations." The Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that it
had "not previously articulated all those principles explicitly"
and noted that several other circuits had, including the Third,
Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth.

The court held that the key allegations were "that through its
investment advice and recommendations, [the defendant]
affirmatively made false statements, or failed to disclose material
facts, about the suitability of the variable annuity investment for
the type of account that the plaintiff had."

The plaintiff argued that the conflict of interest was the heart of
his claim and that "no amount of disclosure can ever cure the
breach of the duty caused by the conflict." The court cited Georgia
case law, though, in which a plaintiff arguing breach of fiduciary
duty must show "both a conflict of interest and a material
misrepresentation or omission."

Also worth noting is that, in a footnote, the Eleventh Circuit
aligned itself with the Ninth Circuit and explained that it would
refer to SLUSA as "barring" a class action to vindicate certain
state law claims rather than "preempting" any cause of action. [GN]

POLLEN: U.S.-Based Employee Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke, writing for Complete Music Update, reports that a
former US-based employee of Pollen -- the ticketing and events
company that fell into administration last month -- has filed a
class action lawsuit in New York over wages that went unpaid in the
month before the firm's collapse.

The lawsuit explains how US-based employees at Pollen, which was
headquartered in the UK, were paid twice monthly. The plaintiff,
Tayler Ulmer, says that she first experienced problems with her
wages at the end of June, with her 30 Jun salary not being paid
until 15 Jul.

The subsequent payments due on 15 and 30 Jul were never paid,
although she claims that she was told on several occasions that
that money would be with her imminently, and that normal payment
schedules would then resume. However, in August the main Pollen
company fell into administration and its US employees were
dismissed.

Ulmer's lawsuit also alleges that "Pollen failed to pay insurance
premiums for its [American] employees and, as a result, Ulmer's
health insurance coverage through Pollen lapsed on 1 Jul 2022,
without her knowledge".

The Pollen business originally grew out of two companies - The
Physical Network and We Represent - both of which used
'peer-to-peer marketing' to sell tickets to events and especially
festivals. That basically meant encouraging fans to promote shows
and sell tickets through their social networks, earning rewards in
return for their efforts.

As the business grew and rebranded, Pollen expanded its operations,
putting together and selling special travel packages and premium
experiences around shows and festivals, and also working with
various partners on staging and promoting specially curated
events.

At the start of the year it seemed like Pollen had successfully
navigated the many challenges that ticketing and events companies
faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and then in April it was
announced that the business had raised $150 million in new
investment.

However, the company was already receiving criticism online from
ticket-buyers regarding the communications around certain events
that had been cancelled, and its system for issuing refunds.

And in the months after that big new round of investment was
announced, speculation began to build about the future of the
business after more than 150 of its staff were made redundant and
reports started to circulate about unpaid bills and pay cheques.

Co-founder and CEO Callum Negus-Fancey reportedly told employees
that the redundancies had been necessary because of commitments
that had been made to the new investors regarding cutting the
firm's overheads. Then, as the delays in making payments became
very apparent, employees were told that a big deal was on the
horizon that would fix everything.

According to a recent report in The Pragmatic Engineer newsletter,
other concerns were raised during this time by employees. For
example, it transpired that payments had been taken early from some
customers who were paying for tickets in instalments, and also that
some of the pension contributions deducted from salaries had not
deposited into each employee's pension account.

Some of those issues were addressed, but senior management were
increasingly absent from staff meetings as those concerns
increased. And when US employees took to the firm's Slack account
in July to complain about the late salaries, that Slack account was
seemingly switched off, even though it was the main communications
system for a company where many people worked remotely.

If Ulmer's lawsuit is granted class action status, it will also
benefit any other people who were still working for Pollen in the
US as of June this year. It remains to be seen if any other legal
action follows in relation to the collapse of the Pollen
business.[GN]

PORTLAND, OR: Tozer Files ADA Suit in D. Oregon
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Portland. The
case is styled as Tiana Tozer, Philip Rhodes, Barbara Jacobsen,
Dane Southard, Lorien Ilena Welchoff, Pauline Long, Mark Barnhill,
Steve Jackson, Keith Martin, Steven Rebischke, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. City of Portland,
Case No. 3:22-cv-01336-MO (D. Ore., Sept. 6, 2022).

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

Portland -- https://www.portland.gov/ -- Oregon’s largest city,
sits on the Columbia and Willamette rivers, in the shadow of
snow-capped Mount Hood.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron K. Stuckey, Esq.
          Christopher J.K. Swift, Esq.
          John A. DiLorenzo, Jr., Esq.
          Seth Tangman, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
          1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
          Portland, OR 97201-5630
          Phone: (503) 241-2300
          Fax: (503) 778-5299
          Email: aaronstuckey@dwt.com
                 chrisswift@dwt.com
                 johndilorenzo@dwt.com
                 moetangman@dwt.com


PREMIER NUTRITION: Montera Appeals Judgment to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------
MARY BETH MONTERA is taking an appeal from a court order denying
the Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion
to decertify class and granting the Plaintiff's motion for entry of
final judgment in the lawsuit entitled Mary Beth Montera,
Plaintiff, v. Premier Nutrition Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-06980-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated New York consumers, brought this class action suit against
the Defendant for alleged violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the
New York General Business Law (GBL) in connection with its
promotion and marketing of Joint Juice, a line of joint health
dietary supplements.

On June 2, 2022 and July 12, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for
judgment as a matter of law and motion to decertify class,
respectively.

On June 9, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of final
judgment.

On August 12, 2022, Judge Richard Seeborg denied the Defendant's
motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion to decertify
class, and granted the Plaintiff's motion for entry of final
judgment.

The Court determined that statutory damages in this case veer away
from serving a compensatory purpose and towards a punitive purpose.
Therefore, the Court ordered a reduction of statutory damages to
$8,312,450. Contrary to the Defendant's arguments, however,
prejudgment interest applies to statutory damages, and is applied
as class members' claims accrued, for a total of $4,583,004.90 in
prejudgment interest. Further, the Court ruled that class action
remains a superior device for resolving claims in this case.

The appellate case is captioned as Mary Beth Montera v. Premier
Nutrition Corporation, Case No. 22-16375, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 12,
2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Mary Beth Montera Mediation Questionnaire was due
on September 19, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on November 10, 2022;

   -- Appellant Mary Beth Montera opening brief is due on December
19, 2022;

   -- Appellee Premier Nutrition Corporation answering brief is due
on January 19, 2023;

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

Plaintiff-Appellant MARY BETH MONTERA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
            Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
            Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.
            BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
            501 West Broadway
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 338-1100

                   - and -

            Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
            LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
            1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 762-1900

                   - and -

            Eugene G. Iredale, Esq.
            Grace Jun, Esq.
            IREDALE AND YOO, APC
            105 West F Street, 4th Floor
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 233-1525

Defendant-Appellee PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION is represented
by:

            Angel Antonio Garganta, Esq.
            VENABLE LLP
            101 California Street, Suite 3800
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 653-3735

                   - and -

            Jessica Grant, Esq.
            MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
            425 Market Street
            San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
            Telephone: (415) 268-7670

                   - and -

            Amit Rana, Esq.
            VENABLE LLP
            101 California Street, Suite 3800
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 653-3747

                   - and -

            Antonia I. Stabile, Esq.
            VENABLE LLP
            101 California Street, Suite 3800
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 653-3734

                   - and -

            Steven Edward Swaney, Esq.
            VENABLE LLP
            101 California Street, Suite 3800
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 653-3722

                   - and -

            Mark D. Taticchi, Esq.
            FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
            One Logan Square, Suite 2000
            Philadelphia, PA 19103
            Telephone: (215) 988-2987

                   - and -

            Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq.
            FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
            90 S. 7th Street, Suite 2200
            Minneapolis, MN 55402
            Telephone: (612) 766-8138

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Fiber Supplements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges Metamucil has been falsely advertised in that
the powdered fiber supplement's added sugar content can actually
decrease appetite control, harm blood sugar levels and damage
digestive health.

The 34-page case says that although Metamucil maker Procter &
Gamble has touted the purportedly "doctor recommended" supplement
as supportive of "healthy blood sugar levels," "appetite control,"
"digestive health," and "heart health by lowering cholesterol,"
scientific studies have shown that taking the product in accordance
with P&G's instructions can cause "unhealthy fluctuations in blood
sugar levels," which over time can cause the body to develop
insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and/or metabolic syndrome.

For example, taking two rounded tablespoons of either
orange-flavored or unflavored Metamucil up to three times daily as
instructed would cause a person to consume 192 extra calories from
added sugar, the lawsuit states. Overall, following the "appetite
control" instructions on the unflavored and orange-flavored
product's labels would lead a consumer to drink "up to 21g and 48g
of added sugar per day, respectively," the suit relays.

"And as one scientific analysis showed, an increase of 150 calories
per day in sugar related to a 1.1% rise in diabetes prevalence by
country, a statistically-significant increase of 11-fold," the
complaint reads.

According to the lawsuit, the fact that Metamucil contains more
sugar than fiber makes it deceptive for Procter & Gamble to market
the product as providing benefits associated with fiber without
disclosing the "countervailing detriments" of the consumption of
added sugar.

"Additionally, it is unfair and deceptive for P&G to advise
consumers to ingest up to six rounded teaspoons or tablespoons
(depending on variety) of the Metamucil Powders, when doing so
would cause many consumers to exceed the daily added sugar intake
levels recommended by authoritative health bodies to prevent harm
to health," the case charges.

Per the lawsuit, one controlled, randomized study has shown that
when sugars are consumed, the fiber in Metamucil "does not improve
or help control blood sugar levels." In that study, researchers
tested the effects on plasma glucose and plasma insulin of
consuming Fybogel, Metamucil or guar gum in a drink that contains
50g of glucose, and found that neither Fybogel nor Metamucil
significantly affected plasma glucose responses, the suit relays.

"In short, consuming the high-sugar Metamucil Powders results in
unhealthy changes in blood sugar levels," the complaint alleges,
claiming P&G's representation that the supplement helps "support"
healthy blood sugar levels is false and likely to mislead a
reasonable consumer.

Other scientific literature demonstrates that the consumption of
sugar-sweetened beverages is harmful and detrimental to heart
health and cholesterol levels, the lawsuit continues.

The case similarly cries foul on P&G's claim that taking Metamucil
can aid with appetite control, stressing that excess sugar
consumption can lead to weight gain and obesity. The defendant's
claim that Metamucil powders can help support appetite control is
"false, or at least highly misleading," the suit alleges.

"In short, because scientific studies show that consuming high
amounts of sugar like that in the Metamucil Powders decreases
appetite control, P&G's appetite control representations are false.
These representations are not only false but likely to mislead
reasonable consumers who, without referencing such scientific
studies, would not know these claims are false."
Lastly, the filing says that consuming sugar can harm the crucial
microbiota that live in the digestive tract and increase the risk
of chronic digestive tract conditions.

The Metamucil label claims at issue "have the capacity, tendency,
and likelihood to confuse or confound" reasonable consumers given
the average buyer does not know the extent to which consuming sugar
can adversely affect blood sugar levels, appetite control and/or
digestive health, the suit contends.

"The average consumer is not intimately familiar with the
scientific evidence regarding the health effects of consuming sugar
or psyllium fiber. And there is no way for a consumer to know—by
simply looking at the label and without reviewing the scientific
evidence—whether or not the Metamucil Powders in fact provide the
claimed benefits or not."

The lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in the United States who,
at any time within the last four years, bought any Metamucil powder
for personal use or household consumption and not for resale. [GN]

QUANTA SERVICES: Ex- Employees File Class Suit Over 401(k) Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Electric
power contractor Quanta Services Inc. was sued in Texas federal
court by two former employees who say their $1.2 billion 401(k)
plan offers inappropriate and risky target date funds as the
default investment option.

The proposed class action takes aim at a suite of actively managed
target date funds from Fidelity, which isn't named as a defendant.
These funds are both too risky for the average retirement investor
and "dramatically more expensive" than a similar suite of passively
managed funds offered by the same company, employees said in a
complaint filed on Sept. 26 in the US District Court. [GN]



QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Malriat Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California enters an order regarding case schedule in
the case, JOSEPH MALRIAT, et al., Plaintiffs v. QUANTUMSCAPE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00058-WHO (N.D.
Cal.).

On April 20, 2021, the Court appointed Frank Fish as lead plaintiff
("Lead Plaintiff," and together with Kathy Stark and Mary Cranny
"Plaintiffs") and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead counsel on behalf
of the putative class.

On June 21, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws
against Defendants QuantumScape Jagdeep Singh, Kevin Hettrich, and
Timothy Holme.

On Jan. 14, 2022, after full briefing and oral argument on the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, the Court issued its Order on Motion to Dismiss, denying
the motion except as to one challenged statement.

Subsequent to the Court's Order on Motion to Dismiss, the parties
commenced discovery. On March 8, 2022, the parties filed a Joint
Case Management Statement and Proposed Order, which is pending.

On July 11, 2022, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed
Order to Amend the Consolidated Class Action Complaint for
Violations of the Federal Securities Laws and Amend the Proposed
Scheduling Order requesting, in pertinent part, the Court sets the
deadline for the Defendants' opposition to the Lead Plaintiff's
motion for class certification to Sept. 29, 2022, and set the
deadline for the Lead Plaintiff's reply in further support of class
certification to Oct. 28, 2022.

On July 13, 2022, the Court ordered that the Defendants' opposition
to the Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification be due Sept.
29, 2022, and further that the Lead Plaintiff's reply in further
support of class certification be due Oct. 13, 2022.

The Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws on July 14,
2022.

The Plaintiffs moved for class certification, appointment as Class
Representatives, and appointment of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as class
counsel on July 29, 2022 and the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion
is currently scheduled for Nov. 2, 2022;

The parties continue to meet and confer regarding discovery
requests, the Defendants are continuing to review and produce
documents on a rolling basis, and the Plaintiffs are continuing to
review the Defendants' productions.

The Plaintiffs' counsel have identified certain scheduling
conflicts with the Court's July 13, 2022 scheduling order,
including: a Partner leading the matter who is preparing for a
wedding on September 24, 2022 and preplanned honeymoon between
October 8, 2022 and Oct. 22, 2022; a lead Senior Associate who is
expecting his child's birth and to take paternity leave for
approximately four weeks beginning in late September 2022; and the
resignation of an Associate effective Sept. 16, 2022.

The Defendants' submission in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification will include the report of an expert to
address the report of the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Cain.

The Plaintiffs will need sufficient time to digest the Defendants'
expert report and prepare for and take the expert's deposition and
the Defendants anticipate meeting with their expert to prepare for
the deposition. They anticipate that in connection with their
reply, they will need time to collaborate with their expert and
that their expert will submit a rebuttal to the Defendants'
expert's report. They will need sufficient time to prepare their
reply brief incorporating, at a minimum, the Defendants' expert's
deposition testimony and their expert's rebuttal, and they
respectfully submit the current schedule does not allow sufficient
time for the parties to accomplish these tasks.

The parties have met and conferred on the proposed schedule to
complete their briefing with respect to the Plaintiffs' class
certification motion. They, therefore, stipulate and agree, and
Judge Orrick approves, as follows:

      1. The Defendants will file their opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by Oct. 6, 2022.

      2. The Plaintiffs will file their reply in further support of
class certification by Nov. 10, 2022.

      3. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification will be held on Dec. 14, 2022, at 2:00 p.m.

The parties are reminded to submit copies of all proposed orders in
Microsoft Word to the Court via email.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3nzh2zjb from Leagle.com.


R.C. BIGELOW: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Tea Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that R.C.
Bigelow misrepresents that several of its Bigelow tea products are
"Manufactured in the USA 100%," a new class action lawsuit alleges.


Plaintiffs Claudia Newton and Brandy Leandro claim that, in
reality, the Bigelow tea products contain tea, flavors, and
materials that are predominantly imported from outside the US.

Newton and Leandro argue that Bigelow "simply purchases these
foreign ingredients and materials, blends and packages the
products, and then distributes the products to wholesalers and
retailers."

Consumers who purchased certain Bigelow tea products were therefore
financially injured by paying a premium price that has been set on
them due to the alleged misrepresentations, the Bigelow tea class
action alleges.

"Plaintiffs purchased the Bigelow tea products based on the
reasonable belief that they were Manufactured in the USA," states
the Bigelow tea class action.

Newton and Leandro want to represent a New York class of consumers
who purchased the Bigelow tea products allegedly misrepresented as
"Manufactured in the USA 100%" at a retail store in the state of
New York.

Bigelow's alleged misrepresentations an 'important factor' in tea
purchasing decision
Newton and Leandro argue that Bigelow's alleged misrepresentations
about its tea products being manufactured in the USA was an
"important factor" in their decision to ultimately purchase them.

Further, Newton and Leandro argue that they now cannot believe any
Bigelow tea products are manufactured in the country, meaning they
will have to refrain from purchasing them "for the time being."

"Class Members will also continue purchasing Bigelow's tea
products, reasonably but incorrectly believing that they are
Manufactured in the USA, resulting in a continuing harm to them,"
states the Bigelow tea class action.

Newton and Leandro claim Bigelow is guilty of intentional
misrepresentation and common law fraud, among other things, and in
violation of New York General Business Law.

Plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory
and injunctive relief along with an award of economic, monetary,
actual, consequential, compensatory, statutory, treble, nominal,
and punitive damages for themselves and all class members.

A similar class action lawsuit was filed against Bigelow in 2020 by
a consumer arguing the company falsely markets and advertises that
its tea products are manufactured in the USA.

Have you purchased a Bigelow tea product represented as being made
entirely in the USA in the state of New York? Let us know in the
comments!

The plaintiffs are represented by Daniella Quitt at Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP, Jason H. Kim of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
LLP, and Aubry Wand of The Wand Law Firm, P.C. [GN]

RAPID PASADENA: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to April 14, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexis Gomez v. Rapid
Pasadena Services, LLC et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01053-GW-AFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu, entered the following orders:

   1. All hearing dates and deadlines to file motions,
      oppositions, replies and documents related thereto should
      be vacated so that the Parties can focus their resources
      on mediation. This includes all deadlines related to
      discovery and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

   2. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file Motion for Class
      Certification is continued to April 14, 2023.

   3. The Defendants’ deadline to file its Opposition to
      Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is continued to
      May 30, 2023.

   4. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Reply to Defendants'
      Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
      is continued to June 13, 2023.

   5. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
      is set for June 29, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

   6. The further scheduling conference is set for June 29, 2023
      at 8:30 a.m.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BXF0BY at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ronelle Silas and Dominique Gonzales,
are represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Jacob Karczewski, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: Edwin@calljutice.com
                  jacob@calljustice.com

The Attorneys for Plaintiff Alexis Ggomez, are:

          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES, APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA , 90025-1760
          Telephone: (310) 312-0299
          Facsimile: (310) 312-0296
          E-mail: makerem@law-rm.com
                   bass@law-rm.com

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Mario Gonzalez, and Vivian Y.
Ramos Valderrama, are:

          Ramin R. Younessi, Esq.
          Samantha L. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RAMIN R. YOUNESSI
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 480-6200
          Facsimile: (213) 480-6201
          E-mail: ryounessi@younessilaw.com

               - and -

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff Francisco Zuleta, Esq.

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

The Attorneys for the Defendants Rapid Pasadena Services, LLC,
Rapid Sameday Logistics, LLC, Rapid Logistics Courier, LLC,
Rapid Logistics, LLC, Rapid Logistics, and Etai Fishbein, are:

          Jonathan Kaplan, Esq.
          Yitz E. Weiss, Esq.
          KAPLAN WEISS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 553-4550
          Facsimiler: (213) 553-4590
          E-mail: kaplan@kaplanweiss.com
                  yitz@kaplanweiss.com

The Attorneys for the Defendants Amazon.com Services, Inc.,
Amazon.com, LLC, Amazon.com, INC., Amazon.com services LLC,
Amazon fulfillment services, INC., and Amazon logistics, Inc.,
are:

          Max Fischer, Esq.
          Brian Fahy, Esq.
          Tuyet Nguyen Lu, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: max.fischer@morganlewis.com
                  brian.fahy@morganlewis.com
                  tuyet.nguyen@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Thomas H. Severson, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, Fifth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 324-1149
          Facsimile: (312) 324-1001
          E-mail: Tom.severson@morganlewis.com

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Leake Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
LISA LEAKE, KRISTEN GRACE, JOSEPH HEYSER, CHRISTOPHER STEIN, AND
LESLIE ZEPEDA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00436-RM (D. Ariz., Sept. 24, 2022)
seeks damages and declaratory relief from Defendant's
discriminatory policies that substantially burdened Plaintiffs'
ability to exercise their religious freedom by announcing that they
receive a medical procedure, which insulted and violated their
strongly held religious beliefs.

According to the complaint, the Defendant reluctantly granted a
handful of religious exemptions and medical exemptions, however
significant caveats attached, including a waiver of medical privacy
right guaranteed under HIPAA, as Defendant intended to release all
medical data to a 3rd party. The Defendant willfully discriminated
against employees based on disability and/or religious belief and
engaged in patterns and practices designed to coerce, manipulate,
ostracize them due to those disabilities and beliefs. Furthermore,
Defendant engaged in retaliatory behavior by wrongfully terminating
Plaintiffs due to their disabilities and/or religious beliefs, says
the suit.

The Named Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant to work in
various positions at its Tucson, Arizona location.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an American multinational
aerospace and defense conglomerate headquartered in Arlington,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nancy Knox Bierman, Esq.
          1326 E. 33rd St. Suite A
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 836-9990
          E-mail: Libralawtexas@gmail.com

RECKITT BENCKISER: Agreed Protective Order Issued in Sterling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. RECKITT BENCKISER GROUP PLC, RAKESH KAPOOR,
and SHAUN THAXTER, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-10041-PKC
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued a Supplemental Third-Party
Stipulated Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Indivior
Confidential Information.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Plaintiffs
and the Defendants, respectfully request that the Court issues a
Supplemental Third-Party Stipulated Protective Order Restricting
Disclosure of Indivior Confidential Information to protect certain
confidential, proprietary, or private information of third party
subpoena-recipient, Indivior Inc., that may be produced or
re-produced in the course of discovery, and to guard against the
waiver of attorney-client privilege, work-product protection
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), and other applicable
privileges. The protections afforded in the Supplemental Third
Party Stipulated Protective Order are in addition to the Stipulated
Protective Order entered June 29, 2022 and in no way diminish the
protections of that June 29, 2022 Protective Order.

Any person subject to the Order who receives from any Producing
Party Discovery Material that is designated as "Confidential" or
"Highly Confidential" will not disclose such Discovery Material,
except as expressly permitted herein. Any violation of the terms of
this Order will be punishable by relief the Court deems
appropriate.

Before disclosing any Confidential or Highly Confidential Discovery
Material to any person referred to in subparagraphs 16(e), (g),
(h), and (j) or paragraph 18(b) of the Order, the counsel for the
Party or Non-Party making the disclosure will provide such person
with a copy of the Order, and such person will sign an undertaking
stating that such person has read this Order and agrees to be bound
by its terms.

All Discovery Material (including, but not limited to, Confidential
and Highly Confidential Discovery Material) will be used solely for
the prosecution or defense of the Action, and will not be used for
any other purpose whatsoever. Confidential and Highly Confidential
information will not be disclosed except in accordance with the
terms of the Order.

The Order does not apply to any information or material that: (i)
was, is or becomes public knowledge other than through a breach of
this Order; (ii) is acquired or learned by the Receiving Party
independent of discovery in this Action; or (iii) is required by
law to be made available to third Parties.

In the event additional Parties join or are joined in the action,
the newly joined Party will not have access to Confidential or
Highly Confidential Discovery Material until its counsel has
executed and, at the request of any Party, filed with the Court,
its agreement to be fully bound by the Order.

Notwithstanding any other provision, no document may be filed with
the Clerk of court under seal without a further Order of the Court
addressing the specific documents or portions of documents to be
sealed. Unless otherwise ordered, a party seeking to file an
opposing party's or a Non-Party's confidential or highly
confidential information will so advise the Designating Party 14
days in advance specifying the precise portion of the information
the party seeks to use, the general purpose thereof and any
redactions to which the party does not object. Within seven days
thereafter, the party or Non-Party whose confidential information
is sought to be used may make an application to seal in accordance
with the Order, indicating the portion or portions of the
information it seeks to have sealed. Nothing in the Order is
intended to alter or modify the applicability of Rule 5.2, Fed. R.
Civ. P., to the case. The redactions expressly authorized by Rule
5.2 may be made without further application to the Court.

Nothing in the Order will preclude a Party from filing Discovery
Materials that the Party itself has designated as Confidential or
Highly Confidential Discovery Material in unredacted form and
without requesting sealing.

Sealed records that have been filed may be removed by the
Designating Party (including a Non-Party Designating Party): (i)
within 90 days after a final decision disposing of the Action is
rendered if no appeal is taken; or (ii) if an appeal is taken,
within 30 days after final disposition of the appeal.

Unless applicable rules of the Court provide for different notice,
if any Receiving Party plans to utilize any Confidential or Highly
Confidential Discovery Material at a court hearing or pretrial
conference, that Receiving Party will use reasonable efforts to
inform the Producing and/or Designating Party, including Non-Party
Indivior, of its intent to use such information in advance of the
court appearance, without being obligated to identify the
particular Confidential or Highly Confidential Discovery Material
to be used.

A Party or Non-Party may object to the designation of Discovery
Material as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" at any time.
Failure to do so at the time of the designation does not operate as
a waiver of any Receiving Party's right to challenge the
"Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" designation of any
Discovery Material by any Designating Party.

Any Non-Party from whom Discovery Material is or has been sought in
the Action may obtain the protections of the Order by designating
that its provision of Discovery Material is subject to the Order.

Nothing in the Order will be construed as authorizing a Party to
disobey any law or court order requiring production of materials
designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential Discovery
Material in the Action.

Within 60 days after receiving notice of entry of an order,
judgment or decree finally ending the Action, including, without
limitation, any appeals therefrom, or the running of time to take
such an appeal, if later, all persons having received Confidential
or Highly Confidential Discovery Material will make commercially
reasonable efforts to identify and destroy all such Confidential or
Highly Confidential Discovery Material, including all copies
thereof and information derived therefrom, or return such materials
to counsel for the Producing Party.

The terms of the Order will survive any settlement, discontinuance,
dismissal, judgment or other disposition of the Action. Any
violation of its terms will be punishable by relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.

The Parties agree to meet and confer concerning any dispute between
the Parties regarding the Order before seeking assistance from the
Court. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute, any Party
may make an appropriate application to the Court for relief.

The Order will become effective as a stipulation among the Parties
immediately upon its execution, even if not yet entered by the
Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4xp6mb5r from Leagle.com.

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING, HALE & DORR LLP, TIMOTHY J. PERLA --
TIMOTHY.PERLA@WILMERHALE.COM -- Boston, MA.

JESSICA L. LEWIS -- jlewis@cassels.com -- San Francisco, CA,
MICHAEL G. BONGIORNO -- MICHAEL.BONGIORNO@WILMERHALE.COM -- New
York, New York, MICHAEL G. BONGIORNO, New York, New York, Counsel
for Defendants Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC and Rakesh Kapoor.

KING & SPALDING LLP, ISRAEL DAHAN -- idahan@kslaw.com -- RICHARD T.
MAROONEY -- rmarooney@kslaw.com -- PAUL A. STRAUS --
pstraus@kslaw.com -- New York, NY, Counsel for Defendant Shaun
Thaxter.

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, SAMUEL H. RUDMAN --
SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- MARIO ALBA JR. -- malba@rgrdlaw.com -- ALAN
I. ELLMAN -- aellman@rgrdlaw.com -- CHRISTOPHER T. GILROY --
cgilroy@rgrdlaw.com -- Melville, NY, Lead Counsel for Lead
Plaintiff and the Class.

VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. THOMAS C. MICHAUD --
tmichaud@vmtlaw.com -- Detroit, MI, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Court Denies Bryce's Bid to Compel Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRYCE BREWER LAW FIRM, LLC, Plaintiff v. REPUBLIC
SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00120-KGB
(E.D. Ark.), Judge Kristine G. Baker of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, issued an
order:

   a. denying Bryce Brewer Law Firm, LLC's motion to compel;

   b. denying as moot the motions to dismiss filed by Republic
      Services, Inc. ("RSI"), and Republic Services Alliance
      Group, Inc. ("RSAGI");

   c. denying as moot BFI Waste Services, LLC's motion for
      summary judgment as to the original complaint; and

   d. granting BFI's motion to lift stay.

Before the Court is the Law Firm's motion to compel. Defendants
BFI, RSI, and RSAGI oppose the Law Firm's motion to compel. The Law
Firm replied in support of its motion to compel. On Sept. 14, 2022,
the Court held a telephone conference with the parties at which
time it heard argument on the motion to compel. During the
telephone conference, the Court also discussed with the parties
several pending motions including specially appearing Defendants
RSI and RSAGI's motions to dismiss the original complaint for lack
of personal jurisdiction; BFI's motion for summary judgment; and
the Defendants' motion to lift stay.

The Law Firm filed its class action complaint on Dec. 30, 2021, in
the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and requested two
classes, a "rate increase class" and a "`fuel recovery fee' class."
On Feb. 9, 2022, the Defendants removed the case to this Court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"),
asserting that the amount in controversy exceeded $7 million.

Dan Browne submitted a declaration in support of the notice of
removal supporting the claim that the amount in controversy
exceeded $7 million. BFI answered the original complaint. Specially
appearing RSI and RSAGI filed motions to dismiss the original
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. BFI filed a motion for
summary judgment as to the original complaint.

On March 8, 2022, the Law Firm filed its first amended class action
complaint (the "operative complaint"). Two days later, BFI moved
for entry of judgment or, in the alternative, for conditions upon
the Law Firm's voluntary dismissal. It also moved to dismiss the
operative complaint. Specially appearing RSI and RSAGI moved to
dismiss the operative complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and, in the
alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Law Firm filed unopposed motions for extension of deadlines to
respond to pending motions stating that the parties had an
agreement to exchange informal discovery relevant to subject matter
jurisdiction and to enter into a protective order. The Court
granted the unopposed motions for extension of deadlines in an
Order dated April 5, 2022. It stayed the deadlines for the Law Firm
to respond to the defendants' pending motions until after the
parties conducted informal discovery on subject matter
jurisdiction.

The Law Firm moves to compel "discrete discovery that is relevant
to the amount in controversy in the litigation." It contends that
the Defendants agreed to conduct informally jurisdictional
discovery. The Law Firm states that the Defendants have "produced a
single spreadsheet and agreed to a deposition" of Dan Browne who
submitted a declaration in support of the notice of removal. It
maintains, however, that "there is another document which
Defendants created and relied upon for removal that shows that the
amounts in the spreadsheet are not representative of the actual
amount in controversy."

In its motion, the Law Firm asserts that Defendants "have produced
a similar document in another case in South Carolina following
removal." It emphasizes that the spreadsheet that defendants
produced -- which was created after removal -- includes all
customers and not all "class members." It also seeks a document
that shows for the fuel recovery fee the amount customers actually
paid, not the amount invoiced, which the Law Firm asserts is an
overinclusive calculation.

The Defendants oppose the motion to compel arguing that they do not
have a document like the one described in the Law Firm's motion to
compel. They also maintain that defendants agreed to discovery
regarding what they considered prior to removal, that they did not
consider a document similar to the one requested by the Law Firm
prior to removal, and that they should not be required to create
such a document in order to produce it now, especially in the
absence of a formal discovery request. Further, they oppose the
motion because they agreed to informal discovery and because
assessing the amount in controversy does not require full discovery
or an exhaustive evidentiary showing at this preliminary stage.

Judge Baker denies the Law Firm's motion to compel because the Law
Firm has not made a formal discovery request for the document it
seeks to compel. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 applies only
when discovery requests have been served. The parties chose to stay
the Court's deadlines and engage in informal discovery.
Accordingly, Rule 37 is not the appropriate vehicle for the Law
Firm to seek relief because the Defendants have not failed to
produce documents requested under Rule 34.

Even if the Law Firm had requested the document it seeks pursuant
to a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, Judge Baker
would deny the request because the document does not exist. The
existence of such a document in a different case in another state
does not require the existence of a similar document in this case
prior to removal. The Defendants represent that they did not rely
on such a document in removing the case and that such a document
does not exist. They cannot produce a document that does not exist,
and the Court will not require them to create such a document now
under these circumstances.

With respect to the Law Firm's argument that the document it seeks
will eventually be requested in discovery so should be produced
now, this argument overlooks that there is no formal discovery
request pending and may never be, if the Law Firm pursues remand
successfully, Judge Baker holds. Further, as the Defendants point
out, the spreadsheet they produced informally was used as an aid to
assess the amount in controversy for the proposed class and
asserted claims in the Law Firm's original complaint pending at the
time of removal. The Law Firm has already filed an amended,
operative complaint that alters the proposed class and asserted
claims. The Defendants maintain correctly that any merits-based
discovery will be tied to the operative complaint. For all of these
reasons, Judge Baker denies the Law Firm's motion to compel.

At the hearing, the parties agreed that regardless of the outcome
of the motion to compel the Law Firm may, if it chooses, conduct a
deposition of Mr. Browne who submitted a declaration in support of
the notice of removal. Accordingly, the Law Firm may, within 45
days of the date of the Order, conduct the deposition of Mr. Browne
as informally agreed by the parties. The questioning of Mr. Browne,
however, will be limited in scope to the subject of the work he
performed to support defendants' removal of this case and events on
or before the date of removal, as agreed to by the parties. The Law
Firm may also inquire of Mr. Browne regarding the spreadsheet he
created in May 2022, but it may not inquire of Mr. Browne regarding
additional documents that did not exist at the time of removal but
that may be able to be created using defendants' customer
relationship management systems.

In response to the Law Firm's original complaint, RSI and RSAGI
filed motions to dismiss the original complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction. At the hearing, the counsel for the
Defendants admitted that with the filing of the operative complaint
RSI and RSAGI's motions to dismiss the original complaint are moot.
Additionally, BFI answered the original complaint and then filed a
motion for summary judgment. The Defendants' counsel stated at the
hearing that BFI's arguments in its motion for summary judgment are
not repeated in any of the filings by BFI in response to the
operative complaint.

The filing of the operative complaint moots RSI and RSAGI's motions
to dismiss and BFI's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly,
Judge Baker denies as moot RSI and RSAGI's pending motions to
dismiss related to the original complaint and BFI's motion for
summary judgment filed before the operative complaint was filed.

To the extent RSI and RSAGI would like to supplement their pending
motions to dismiss the operative complaint, they may do so.
Additionally, BFI may file a motion for summary judgment directed
to the Law Firm's operative complaint. Given the procedural posture
of this case, the Court recognizes that the parties may choose to
cite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c) and incorporate by
reference their prior filings, if appropriate.

Also before the Court is the Defendants' motion to lift stay. The
Defendants seek to lift the stay so that the Law Firm will be
required to respond to BFI's motion for entry of judgment, or, in
the alternative, for conditions upon plaintiff's voluntary
dismissal, and the Defendants' motions to dismiss the operative
complaint. The Law Firm opposes the motion because it asserts that
the informal discovery, which was the basis for the stay, has not
occurred.

Because she has denied the Law Firm's motion to compel and granted
the Law Firm 45 days to take the deposition of Mr. Browne and
because the Law Firm represents that it will be in a position to
determine whether it will move for remand after it has deposed Mr.
Browne, Judge Baker grants the Defendants' motion to lift stay
after the 45-day period for the Law Firm to take Mr. Browne's
deposition expires.

The Law Firm will file responses to BFI's motion for entry of
judgment, or, in the alternative, for conditions upon the
Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal, the Defendants' motions to dismiss
the operative complaint, and any other motions filed by the
Defendants that become ripe for response under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District
Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas within 60
days from the date of this Order. If, as the Law Firm suggests, it
moves for remand after concluding informal discovery by taking Mr.
Browne's deposition, the Law Firm may, at that time, file a motion
to continue the stay.

Judge Baker, therefore, denied the Law Firm's motion to compel. The
Law Firm may, if it chooses to do so within 45 days of the date of
the Order, under the informal agreement of the parties, depose Mr.
Browne as limited by the terms and conditions set forth in the
Order. Judge Baker denies as moot RSI and RSAGI's motions to
dismiss and BFI's motion for summary judgment all filed before the
filing of the operative complaint. She grants BFI's motion to lift
stay under the terms and conditions set forth in her Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4zzdyevh from Leagle.com.


ROCKWELL AUTOMATION: Berube Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mark Berube, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Rockwell Automation,
Inc., the Rockwell Automation Employee Benefits Plan Committee, and
John/Jane Does 1–20, Case No. 2:20-cv-01783-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rules
      23(a) and either 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3);

   2. appointing Mr. Berube to serve as Class Representative;
      and

   3. appointing Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP and Bailey &
      Glasser LLP as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following Class:

   "All married participants (and their beneficiaries) of the
    B006 Sub-Plan and the B001 Sub-Plan that began receiving
    pension benefits in the form of a joint and survivor annuity
    on or after January 1, 2015."

Rockwell Automation is an American provider of industrial
automation whose brands include Allen-Bradley, FactoryTalk software
and LifecycleIQ Services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 9,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C6sD7V
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: dneedham@ikrlaw.com
                  rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          Laura Babiak, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  mboyko@baileyglasser.com
                  lbabiak@baileyglasser.com

RUSH AUTO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Frenci Suit With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Christopher Frenci, Plaintiff v. Rush Auto Corporation
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-22-00414-PHX-MTL (D. Ariz.),
Judge Michael T. Liburdi of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with
prejudice.

Mr. Frenci's Class Action Complaint asserts various claims against
his former employer Rush Auto Corp. LLC, Janet Rush, and Daniel
Thorpe (collectively "Defendants"). The Complaint charges the
Defendants with violating the Family Medical Leave Act, the
Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Arizona Civil Rights Act.
It also alleges that the Defendants are liable for Negligent
Infliction of Emotional Distress under Arizona common law. The
Defendants move to dismiss based on res judicata and an unexecuted
Separation, Release, and Waiver Agreement.

Prior to initiating the lawsuit, Mr. Frenci filed an action against
Mr. Thorpe in Maricopa County Justice Court. The Justice Court
litigation alleged that Mr. Thorpe, Rush Auto Corp. LLC's human
resources manager, ignored Mr. Frenci's request "for help after
being harassed, bullied, picked on, discriminated and neglected by
upper management and co-workers." Mr. Frenci's Justice Court
complaint accused Mr. Thorpe of refusing to "extend his FMLA" and
that "as of Jan 15th 2021 he would no longer have Health Care
Benefits." It also alleges that "Mr. Thorpe was my HR Manager and
should have protected me and my rights and make a safe/friendly
work environment."

Mr. Thorpe moved to dismiss the Justice Court litigation based on
the unexecuted Separation, Release, and Waiver Agreement. He argued
that the Agreement is enforceable under the equitable doctrine of
estoppel because Mr. Frenci negotiated terms and received all the
benefits of the agreement, including extended leave with pay and
benefits while on leave, without disavowing it. The Agreement
includes a broadly drafted claims release applicable to Rush Auto
Corporation and its "officers, directors, current and past
employees."

The release applies to "any and all charges, complaints, claims,
liabilities, and obligations of any nature whatsoever including,
without limited to, the termination of Mr. Frenci's employment with
RAR" and the "Family Medical Leave Act," "Title VII," "the Arizona
Civil Rights Act," "the Americans With Disabilities Act," "or any
other federal, state or other governmental statute, regulation, or
ordinance and any rights or claims for personal injury, wages,
overtime, vacation," and "benefits" that Mr. Frenci may have "at
any time hereinafter may have or claim to have whether known or
unknown." The Justice Court granted the motion to dismiss in a
one-sentence handwritten order -- "IT IS ORDERED: Granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss."

Judge Liburdi agrees with the Defendants that there is an identity
of claims between the Justice Court litigation and the instant
case. Both cases "arise out of the same transactional nucleus of
facts." He finds that Mr. Frenci, a former employee of Rush Auto
Corporation, encountered issues in the workplace with other
employees. His work performance suffered resulting from certain
intense personal setbacks that need not be mentioned in detail.

Related to these issues, Mr. Frenci and Rush Auto Corp. negotiated
the Separation, Release, and Waiver Agreement. Although it is
unexecuted, the Defendants contend that Mr. Frenci is estopped from
denying that it governs and, further, it appears that the Justice
Court granted Mr. Thorpe's motion to dismiss on this basis. Despite
having received the Agreement's financial benefits -- Mr. Frenci
does not deny receiving those benefits -- he initially sought
relief in the Justice Court related to his former employment with
Rush Auto Corporation. This includes alleged discrimination and
violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. After that case was
dismissed, he now seeks similar employment-related relief in this
case.

Mr. Frenci argues that he could not have asserted his Americans
With Disabilities Act claim at the Justice Court while his request
for a right to sue determination was pending with the United States
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). But, as the
Defendants persuasively argue, the preclusive effects of res
judicata are not excused where a plaintiff could have either asked
the trial court for a stay while the EEOC evaluated the charge of
discrimination or moved to amend the complaint. In the Justice
Court, Mr. Frenci averred the existence of his pending EEOC charge.
Thus, at the very least, the option of staying the Justice Court
proceedings was available to him.

Mr. Frenci also argues in his Response to the Motion to Dismiss
that his Justice Court action did not assert employment-related
claims but instead sought relief under A.R.S. Section 12-541. That
statute establishes a one-year statute of limitations for certain
civil causes of action such as defamation, breach of an employment
contract, and wrongful termination. Despite a passing reference to
this statute in a Justice Court filing, the Justice Court record
does not develop this argument any further. It is not clear how
this statute helps Mr. Frenci avoid res judicata. Instead, Judge
Liburdi finds that it further supports the application of res
judicata because of the statute's relation to employment contracts,
employee handbooks, and wrongful termination.

Mr. Frenci argues that the order does not operate as an
adjudication on the merits because the judge did not specify that
the dismissal was with prejudice. The Defendants disagree, arguing
that the Justice Court's order dismissing Mr. Frenci's case was,
under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 41(b), an "involuntary dismissal" that
"operates as an adjudication on the merits."

Judge Liburdi holds that the Justice Court's order was issued
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which is an involuntary dismissal that
does not fall under one of the excepted categories in Rule 41(b).
The order does not indicate that the dismissal was without
prejudice, i.e., subject to refiling. Under the plain language of
Rule 41(b), because the order did not indicate that Mr. Frenci's
claims are subject to refiling, it operates as an adjudication on
the merits.

Finally, Judge Liburdi finds that Mr. Thorpe was named as a
defendant in the Justice Court lawsuit. Mr. Frenci's allegations
there related to Mr. Thorpe's conduct as Rush Auto Corp.'s human
resources manager. The Justice Court complaint alleges that "Mr.
Thorpe was my HR Manager and should have protected me and my
right." Mr. Thorpe is in privity to his employer, Defendant Rush
Auto Cor., and its owner, Janet Rush.

For these reasons, the Defendants have satisfied their burden to
show that res judicata applies in the case.

Thus, Judge Liburdi resolves the Defendants' motion based on res
judicata. For this reason, he need not evaluate their alternative
arguments of release and waiver.

Accordingly, he grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with
prejudice. The Clerk of Court will enter judgment in favor of the
Defendants and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mtz5tz2j from Leagle.com.


SAM DOWIES: Court Junks Hicks Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLIS RAY HICKS, JR. v.
SAM DOWIES, Case No. 5:21-cv-01896-EEF-MLH (W.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge Mark L. Hornsby entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion to certify class.

The Court said, "A key requirement of a class action is that the
representative party can fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. The Plaintiff admits in his motion that he
is ignorant of the scope of the federal rules and is lacking in
legal education and experience. Those concessions, along with
several filings made by Plaintiff in this case, are strong evidence
that the Plaintiff could not adequately represent the interests of
a class."

Ellis Ray Hicks, Jr., who is self-represented, filed this civil
action in June 2021. He alleges that an inmate at the Claiborne
Parish Detention Center called him and passed on a message from
Sheriff Sam Dowies that included a threat that Plaintiff get out of
Louisiana or be arrested, that Plaintiff drop or dismiss a civil
rights complaint, and that Plaintiff not contact certain
individuals to assist him.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xQvXBs at no extra charge.[CC]

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Users File Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ionut Arghire, writing for SecurityWeek, reports that represented
by Clarkson Law Firm, two Samsung users have filed a class action
lawsuit against the electronics manufacturer over the two data
breaches the company has suffered in 2022.

The 43-page complaint filed with the Federal District Court for the
Northern District of California claims that Samsung unnecessarily
collected user data and then stored and sold it without proper
security protections, which led to two back-to-back data breaches.

The lawsuit claims that Samsung intentionally disabled specific
functions and features of its electronics products, including TVs
and printers, and required users to submit personally identifiable
information such as home addresses and dates of birth.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the electronics giant then
stored, monitored, and sold the collected data without properly
securing it, although it was telling users that "security and
privacy are at the core of what we do and what we think about every
day".

Although it was claiming that users' security and privacy were
being protected via 'holistic' and 'industry-leading security', the
company implemented deficient security measures that led to
consumers' personal information being compromised.

In early 2022, Samsung fell victim to the Lapsus$ cybergang, which
boasted to have stolen 190 Gb of data from the tech giant. The
stolen information included source code related to Galaxy devices
and over 6,000 secret keys, such as private keys, login data, and
AWS, GitHub, and Google keys.

According to the lawsuit, Samsung's claims that only "source code
related to the operation of Galaxy devices" was leaked during the
incident "minimized entirely the impact of this first data
breach".

In July 2022, Samsung fell victim to a cyberattack that resulted in
the compromise of personal information of US customers. That
incident, the lawsuit claims, could have been prevented.

"It is believed that greater than half of Samsung's U.S. consumers
had their [personal identifiable information] compromised in the
breach," the complaint alleges.

According to the lawsuit, the incident exposed the impacted
individuals to a variety of attacks, including identity theft,
phishing, dual-authentication scams, and more.

As part of the lawsuit, the two Samsung users -- Shelby Holtzclaw
and Naeem Seirafi -- are demanding that the company notifies all
the impacted consumers, improves its security practices, and
provides victims with financial compensation. [GN]

SANTA ANA MINI: Hunter Files Suit Over Unlawful Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
RUBY HUNTER, an individual, Plaintiff v. SANTA ANA MINI STORAGE, a
General Partnership; PAUL PETIT, an individual; DAVID VILLAREAL, an
individual; TIM BRAUN, an individual; GARY BRAUN, an individual;
and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2022
(Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Sept. 8, 2022) is a class action arising
from the Defendants' unlawful business practices in violation of
the California Self-Service Storage Facility Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' California storage
facilities systematically, unjustifiably, and unfairly utilized
premature lockout methods against the Plaintiff that violated the
28 day safe harbor and notice requirements of the California
Self-Service Storage Facility Act. Additionally, the Defendants
have also violated the Act by charging Plaintiff and tenants an
unlawful second late fee they called as "Pre-foreclosure Fee," says
the complaint.

From around March 2021 to present, the Plaintiff rented
self-storage spaces as California non-commercial consumers from all
Defendants.

Santa Ana Mini Storage owns, manages and/or operates a self-service
storage facility in the City of Ana in California.

The Plaintiff, of Irvine, California, appears pro se.[BN]

SEDGWICK COUNTY, KS: District Court Dismisses Gilmore v. SCADC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John W. Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas dismisses the case, CHRISTOPHER GILMORE, Plaintiff v.
JEFF EASTER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-3181-JWL-JPO (D.
Kan.), for failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiff, a detainee at the Sedgwick County Adult Detention
Center in Wichita, Kansas ("SCADC"), filed his pro se civil rights
case under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. On Aug. 30, 2022, the Court
entered a Memorandum and Order to Show Cause ("MOSC") granting the
Plaintiff an opportunity to show good cause why his Complaint
should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the MOSC. The
Plaintiff was also given the opportunity to file an amended
complaint to cure the deficiencies. The matter is before the Court
for screening the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

The Court found in the MOSC that: The Plaintiff's bald allegation
of a conspiracy is insufficient to state a claim; the Plaintiff's
conspiracy allegation under Section 1985(3) fails because he has
not shown discriminatory animus against him based on his membership
in a protected class; the Plaintiff has not alleged that staff at
the SCADC prevented him from accessing the courts or caused him
actual injury; a Section 1983 claim must be based on the violation
of a plaintiff's personal rights and not the rights of someone
else; to the extent the Plaintiff seeks to modify his bond in his
criminal case, the Court would be prohibited from hearing his claim
under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971); the Plaintiff's
request for compensatory damages is barred by 42 U.S.C. Section
1997e(e), because the Plaintiff has failed to allege a physical
injury; the Plaintiff's request for release must be brought in a
habeas action; and the case cannot proceed as a class action with
any pro se plaintiff as class representative.

Judge Lungstrum holds that the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails
to cure the deficiencies set forth in the MOSC. He continues to
assert that he is bringing this action under 42 U.S.C. Section
1985, without showing discriminatory animus against him based on
his membership in a protected class. He continues to make bald
claims of conspiracy. The Court found in the MOSC that to state a
claim for conspiracy, the Plaintiff must include in his complaint
enough factual allegations to suggest that an agreement was made.
The Plaintiff provides no factual information whatsoever to
demonstrate any type of agreement was made between anyone.

The Plaintiff also continues to make arguments about his bond in
his ongoing state criminal proceedings. He has not indicated why
his issues cannot be raised in his state criminal proceedings or
why he cannot submit his documentation by other means.

The Court found in the MOSC that to the extent the Plaintiff seeks
to modify his bond in his criminal case, the Court would be
prohibited from hearing Plaintiff's claim under Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). "The Younger doctrine requires a federal
court to abstain from hearing a case where (1) state judicial
proceedings are ongoing; (2) that implicate an important state
interest; and (3) the state proceedings offer an adequate
opportunity to litigate federal constitutional issues." "Once these
three conditions are met, Younger abstention is non-discretionary
and, absent extraordinary circumstances, a district court is
required to abstain." Judge Lungstrum finds that Younger abstention
is appropriate, and any request for injunctive relief regarding his
ability to electronically file documents in state court is denied.

The Plaintiff continues to allege a "Civil Rights/Elective
Franchise" claim under 28 U.S.C. Section 1343. The Court found in
the MOSC that the Plaintiff fails to assert factual allegations in
support of these claims. He fails to explain what each defendant
did to Plaintiff; when the defendant did it; how the defendant's
action harmed Plaintiff; and what specific legal right the
Plaintiff believes the defendant violated. In his Amended
Complaint, he now claims that this claim will be supported by
documentary evidence that is being compelled through subpoenas
currently filed with the Court. He has failed to state a claim for
relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 1343.

The Plaintiff asserts that he was part of a PREA investigation in
2017, and Detective Hollyfield and Lt. Taylor refused to adhere to
the Prison Rape Elimination Act ("PREA") compliance standards. PREA
"authorizes the reporting of incidents of rape in prison,
allocation of grants, and creation of a study commission," but
there is nothing in the PREA to indicate that it created a private
right of action, enforceable under Section 1983. As a matter of
law, the Plaintiff cannot pursue a Section 1983 claim based on the
Defendant's alleged failure to comply with the PREA.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff's alleged violations occurring in 2017
would be barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.
The statute of limitations applicable to Section 1983 actions is
determined from looking at the appropriate state statute of
limitations and tolling principles. The forum state's statute of
limitations for personal injury actions governs civil rights claims
under both 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and Section 1983.  n Kansas, that
is the two-year statute of limitations in Kan. Stat. Ann. Section
60-513(a)." The same two-year statute of limitations governs
actions under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985.

Despite the reasoning set forth in the MOSC, the Plaintiff
continues to seek compensatory damages and immediate release from
custody. He also asks that all the Defendants be subject to
restraining orders and be charged with crimes/disbarment. As set
forth in the MOSC, the Plaintiff's request for compensatory damages
is barred by 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(e), because he has failed to
allege a physical injury, and Plaintiff's request for release must
be brought in a habeas action. In addition, Judge Lungstrum says
the Court cannot order criminal charges and cannot order State
courts to open or close cases.

The Plaintiff still purports to bring the action as a class action,
asking the Court to extend the filing deadlines for amended
complaints "or other documents" until Jan. 1, 2023. His request for
an extension is denied. Judge Lungstrum cautioned him in the MOSC
that he cannot serve as a class representative, and he lacks
standing to assert rights on behalf of other inmates. The Plaintiff
continues to assert injuries and claims on behalf of other
inmates.

Although the Plaintiff suggests that he has been denied meaningful
access to the courts, he has filed a Complaint, an Amended
Complaint, a response, and 11 motions in the case. Despite the
Court's prior denial of his motion to appoint counsel, he has filed
two additional motions to appoint counsel. He has also filed two
motions to appoint special masters and amicus curiae. The Plaintiff
has also filed requests for discovery, despite the fact that the
Defendants have not been served and the case has not survived
screening.

The Plaintiff seems to view the case as a means to conduct
discovery regarding the circumstances surrounding the alleged death
of another inmate in order to bring criminal charges against the
Defendants.

Finally, Judge Lungstrum finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
show good cause why the matter should not be dismissed for the
reasons set forth and in the Court's MOSC. The matter is dismissed
for failure to state a claim. All of the Plaintiff's motions
seeking the appointment of counsel, discovery, and the appointment
of a special master are denied. The Plaintiff also filed a motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but failed to include the
financial information required by statute. In light of the Court's
dismissal of the case, the motion is denied as moot.

Accordingly, Judge Lungstrum dismisses the matter for failure to
state a claim. He denies as moot the Plaintiff's motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff's motions (Docs. 5, 6,
8, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 16) are denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/mucmm5um from Leagle.com.


SELECT CONCRETE: Faces Caballero FLSA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
DELFINA CABALLERO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT CONCRETE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA
LLC and ADAN BENAVIDES, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00420 (M.D.
Fla., September 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant
for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
construction laborers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Ms. Caballero worked for the Defendants as a construction laborer
from approximately June 27, 2020, through May 20, 2022.

Select Concrete of Central Florida LLC is a construction company,
with its place of business in Leesburg, Lake County, 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

SELECT HOME WARRANTY: Johnson-Gruver Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Ark.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Select Home Warranty
LLC. The case is styled as Virginia Johnson-Gruver, individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Select Home Warranty
LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00252-DPM (E.D. Ark., Sept. 26, 2022).

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

Select Home Warranty -- https://www.selecthomewarranty.com/ -- is a
New Jersey-based company that provides home warranty plans across
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (615) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Michael Ryburn, Esq.
          RYBURN LAW FIRM
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 231
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 228-8100
          Email: jason@ryburnlawfirm.com


SINGTEL OPTUS: May Face Class Action After Massive Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Hickey, writing for Sydney Criminal Lawyers, reports that
Optus -- the company that has built its brand on the proposition of
'Yes' -- is now saying a resounding 'No' to customers who are
requesting assistance to change their phone numbers and seek some
form of compensation, after the massive data breach which has
exposed millions of Australians to the risk of identity theft.

Disgruntled customers have found themselves feeling alone and
vulnerable as the telecommunications giant deals with the fallout
of the breach, which is believed to include names, birthdates,
drivers licenses and / or passports as well as email addresses and
phone numbers.  

And despite the company's claims that any company can be vulnerable
to sophisticated criminal networks utilising advanced systems,
preliminary investigations suggest the breach was conducted by a
less than sophisticated hacker using basic techniques easily
accessible to anyone.

Customers left in the dark
A hacker who has claimed responsibility for the harvest has
demanded $1 million USD, or about $1.5 million AUD, for the return
of the data.

Optus says it has not responded to the extortion attempt.

And while the amount of the demand may seem link small change for a
company like Optus, there are concerns that paying the sum could
embolden the same person, or indeed others, to engage in similar
conduct in the future.

In addition, there does not appear to be adequate verification that
the person is indeed responsible -- he or she may be someone
attempting to capitalise from the conduct. In that event, the
payment will not ensure return of the data. And indeed even if the
payment were made, there are reports the data is already for sale
on the dark web.

The lack of information is frustrating customers, many of whom are
concerned of falling victim to identity theft -- which could affect
them well into the future.

Optus' response
For its part, Optus is carefully choosing its words, leaving
customers in the dark about where they stand or what could happen
next.

Despite the CEO's emotional apology on national television, many
customers feel 'left high and dry'.

To date, the companies' advice is fairly standard, including that
affected customers should:

Be careful of possible scam calls;
Consider strengthening password and other online security measures;
and
Be on the lookout for more information from Optus in the coming
days.

Who is accountable?
For those facing the very real prospect of identity theft, this
general advice is just not good enough in the eyes of many.

Some are now refusing to pay their monthly bills, others have been
told that to change providers could cost them as much as $1,000 to
pay out contracts before they can move on.

One customer who sensibly set up an identity theft monitoring
account immediately after being notified that he was affected,
which will cost about $15 per month, has been told by the telco
that he is not entitled to have that personal expense reimbursed.

It is frustrating to many that Optus is shifting the responsibility
to customers, telling them they are accountable for what may occur
and that they must take matters into their own hands -- effectively
denying any legal responsibility or assistance in rectifying the
issue.

Many customers have had their trust so severely broken that they
will be taking all measures to protect themselves anyway, rather
than putting their faith in the company to fix the problem.

Millions affected
Optus says that 9.8 million accounts may have been compromised,
while the hacker says he/she has the personal information of 11.2
million people.

This, in itself, has left many customers wondering whether Optus
has implemented adequate systems to gauge the extent of data
breaches, let alone to protect against them.

Class action
In the meantime, an Australian law firm is investigating the
possibility of a class action over what is believed to be
Australia's biggest data breach to date.

In the wake of the chaos that has ensued, it's become clear that
Australia's current data protection laws are completely inadequate
when it comes to protecting consumers in such a situation.

A class action lawsuit is one where a group of people are
represented collectively in a court of law.

Class action suits originated in the US but over the years other
countries such in Europe and Canada as well as Australia have
enabled changes to the law so that people can band together to
bring civil actions against corporations and companies they believe
have broken the law, or been negligent in some way.

In the past day or so, Optus has now offered "the most affected
current and former customers" a free 12-month subscription to
Equifax Protect, a credit monitoring and identity protection
service that can help reduce the risk of identity theft. But many
think the service should be offered to everyone who has been
affected, not just a select few.

And even though such a monitor may provide some peace of mind, it
does not take away the feelings of vulnerability, fear and stress
that come as the result of such a significant invasion of privacy,
and such a serious breach of consumer trust. [GN]

STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Violates Right to Free Speech, Collier Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
IRINA COLLIER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRESIDENT OF STANFORD, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:22-cv-05375-KAW (N.D. Cal., September 19, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violation of freedom of
speech under First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Stanford University is a private research university in Stanford,
California. [BN]

STATE FARM: Appeal Filed in Taylor Class Suit
---------------------------------------------
An appeal has been filed with the Florida First District Court of
Appeal in the lawsuit entitled Aymee Taylor, Plaintiff, v. State
Farm Florida Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
16-2020-CA-004553, pending in Duval County, Florida.

The case type is stated as Final Civil Other Notice.

The appellate case is captioned as Aymee Taylor, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated vs. State Farm Florida
Insurance Company, a Florida insurance corporation, Case No.
22-2851, filed on September 12, 2022. [BN]

STATE FARM: Averts Class Action Over Diminished Value Formula
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Rabb, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that auto and
property insurers in the last three months have settled
class-action lawsuits in Southern states alleging the carriers
systematically underpaid claims. A federal appeals court in Georgia
has decided a similar issue in favor of the insurer, noting that
plaintiffs in a State Farm lawsuit are too disparate to form a
class.

The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court
ruling in Rashad Baker et al vs. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co. The court found that, despite concerns over the
insurer's method of determining the diminished value of damaged
vehicles, the plaintiffs did not prove that all affected
policyholders since 2017 -- about 600,000 drivers -- were equally
injured by the use of the formula.

"Appellants failed to demonstrate that State Farm's use of the
17(c) formula always resulted in the underassessment of diminished
value claims," the Atlanta-based appeals court wrote in the per
curiam opinion.

The 17(c) formula is a court-approved method that State Farm
adopted for calculating the payout on vehicles damaged or totaled
in accidents, following a 2001 Georgia Supreme Court decision. The
plaintiffs in this case argue that State Farm has misused the
formula to undercut the value of its insured vehicles involved in
accidents.

The claimant attorneys relied mostly on the testimony of Richard
Hixenbaugh, founder of Collision Claim Associates, in Atlanta. He
is a certified collision analyst and has spent years adjusting
claims, his website shows.

"In the course of our vehicle diminished value research,
information was collected pertaining to all 50 states. As a result,
we launched CollisionClaims.com to assist consumers nationwide with
vehicle diminished value claims," the site notes. Hixenbaugh's
Linkedin page said he has participated as an expert witness in
three class-action lawsuits on diminshed value.

Hixenbaugh testified in the Baker case that his analysis of 75
claims found that the formula always produced low-ball values.
Among other issues, State Farm set a 10% cap on the diminished
value factor, or the amount it will bump up the market value of a
crashed vehicle. The formula also factored in the mileage twice and
undervalued the worth of cars with high mileage.

The appeals court said that, "to be sure, Dr. Hixenbaugh identified
some fundamental flaws with the 17(c) formula." But he based his
opinion on a small and unrepresentative sample size. He also
claimed that the formula State Farm used was incorrect, based
mostly on his "generalized knowledge and experience," the judges
noted.

The district court and the appeals court said each policyholder's
case was highly individualized and the request for class
certification did not meet the requirements spelled out in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The rules require that the class
members have commonality and that the "common questions of law or
fact predominate over questions affecting only individual class
members."

Each policyholder's case must be examined to determine if their
vehicles were low-balled and if State Farm breached its contract,
the court said.

The lawsuit by Baker and two other policyholders will now continue
in federal district court, but not as a class action involving
hundreds of thousands of drivers.

The court's opinion deviated from the outcome in two other recent
class-action cases in which policyholders argued that insurers had
artificially reduced the value of property in thousands of claims.
In Alabama, State Farm in July agreed to settle claims brought by
homeowners. The claimants argued that the insurer inappropriately
depreciated the cost of labor and other non-material costs on
repairs to insureds' property.

In Mississippi, USAA insurance company in August settled a class
action from drivers who said that the insurer did not include taxes
and fees when paying out on totaled vehicles. [GN]

SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Unlawfully Collects Debt, Carter Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAWAYNA CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 220901872 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., September
20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of collecting an
alleged consumer debt utilizing a third-party vendor to send the
debt collection letter on its behalf. In doing so, the Defendant
disclosed the personal information of consumers, including the
Plaintiff, says the suit.

Synergetic Communication, Inc. is a debt collector doing business
in Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Nicholas Linker, Esq.
         ZEMEL LAW LLC
         660 Broadway
         Paterson, NJ 07514
         Telephone: (862) 227-3106
         E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com

TAMKO BUILDING: Can Compel Summerfield to Arbitrate in Melnick Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARTIN MELNICK, BETH MELNICK, LIA LOUTHAN, and
SUMMERFIELD GARDENS CONDOMINIUM, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-2630-JAR-KGG (D. Kan.), Judge Julie A.
Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
grants TAMKO's Motion to Compel Arbitration with respect to
Summerfield Gardens' shingles installed on Lots 1, 2, 4, 18, 19,
20, and 21.

In this putative nationwide class action, the named Plaintiffs
assert claims against TAMKO alleging that roofing shingles
manufactured by TAMKO were defective. The case was originally filed
in the Eastern District of California, and it was subsequently
transferred to the District of Kansas on Oct. 15, 2019, by
stipulation of the parties. Prior to transfer, TAMKO's motion to
strike the nationwide class allegations was rejected by the
California district court.

The Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint on
July 20, 2020, which defined the class as: "All individuals and
entities that own or have owned TAMKO Heritage shingles, or that
own or have owned homes, residences, buildings or other structures
located in the United States, on which TAMKO Heritage shingles are
or were installed." Judge John W. Lungstrum denied TAMKO's partial
motion to dismiss the Complaint on Sept. 16, 2020, and class
certification discovery commenced. The case was reassigned to the
undersigned on Feb. 17, 2022.

Named Plaintiff Summerfield Gardens is a condominium association
that owns 20 duplex buildings located in Godfrey, Illinois. The two
units in each duplex share a roof, which is owned and maintained by
the condominium association. Construction of the Summerfield
Gardens buildings took place between 2003 and 2007. Nineteen of the
twenty Summerfield Gardens buildings were roofed during
construction with TAMKO Heritage Shingles.

Summerfield Gardens alleges that the Heritage Shingles have
prematurely failed by cracking, degranulating, curling, and coming
loose, which has caused water to leak into several of the homes and
other additional damage. It seeks money damages both for the cost
of replacing the Heritage Shingles and for harm to the underlying
buildings. Based on these allegations, Summerfield Gardens asserts
nine claims: strict liability (design defect); strict liability
(manufacturing defect); strict liability (failure to warn);
negligence; negligent failure to warn; unjust enrichment;
fraudulent concealment; negligent misrepresentation; and violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act. It also seeks a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

TAMKO is a limited liability corporation with its principal place
of business in Galena, Kansas. It manufactures Heritage asphalt
roofing in Missouri, Kansas, Texas, Alabama, and Maryland, and has
sold TAMKO Heritage shingles in every state in the United States
except Hawaii and Alaska.

TAMKO added arbitration language to packages of the Heritage
Shingles in December 2004, and every package of shingles
manufactured since that date has been wrapped with a 30-year
Limited Warranty that contained some version of that arbitration
language. In 2005, 2006, and 2007, each package contained a
large-print bold box at the center of each wrapping, which read
"IMPORTANT, READ CAREFULLY BEFORE OPENING BUNDLE." To the left of
the box was a "MANDATORY BINDING ARBITRATION" paragraph. Below the
Arbitration Clause was a "Legal Remedies" paragraph.

Summerfield Gardens alleges in both its First and Second Amended
Complaints that construction on its buildings began in 2003. The
sole warranty claim that it submitted to TAMKO, for a single
purchase of shingles used at a single unit, was for shingles sold
in March 2004—before any arbitration clause was added to the
packaging. Although the shingles themselves are stamped with the
approximate date of manufacture, Summerfield Gardens did not save
any samples of the allegedly defective shingles after replacing
them in 2015 or thereafter.

However, in November 2020 interrogatory responses, Summerfield
Gardens disclosed the approximate dates of installation for each
duplex on which Heritage Shingles were installed. The interrogatory
responses did not indicate when the shingles used during any of
these installations or repairs were manufactured or purchased, but
Summerfield Gardens indirectly provided information during its
January 2021 document production. That production included invoices
submitted to Emmons & Wickenhauser ("E & W"), the developer of
Summerfield Gardens, which included shingle purchases by E & W from
two supplier lumberyards. These receipts indicate that the Heritage
Shingles for these seven duplexes were purchased and shipped to
Summerfield Gardens in June 2006, May 2007, February 2006, January
2006, November 2006, March 2007, and September 2006, respectively.

David Fischer, of Fischer Lumber Co., the retailer that sold the
shingles to E & W, testified that he generally sold Natural Timber
TAMKO shingles within one or two months of purchasing them from a
distributor, and the shingles sold to E & W for use at Lots 1, 2,
19, 20, and 21 in 2006 and 2007 were thus more likely than not
manufactured after 2004. He was not able to identify when he
received the shingles used for Lot 18, and was not asked about the
shingles for Lot 4, but those shingles were sold to Summerfield
Gardens on January 16 and Feb. 14, 2006, respectively.

Fischer also testified that Fischer Lumber ultimately stopped
purchasing Heritage Shingles and switched to GAF shingles because
the company got tired of dealing with the complaints consumers made
to Fischer Lumber about the shingles "on and off through the early
2000s." Similarly, Bob Emmons, the "E" in E & W, testified that the
company stopped using Heritage Shingles in 2006, except for the
Summerfield Gardens project, where it continued to use the shingles
for consistency. Emmons said E & W started having trouble with the
shingles and his business has "never gone back to TAMKO."

TAMKO moves to compel arbitration with respect to shingles
installed on Summerfield Gardens Lots 1, 2, 4, 18, 19, 20, and 21,
which it contends were purchased by E & W in January 2006 or later.
It argues that under principles of contract law, the Arbitration
Clause placed on packages of Heritage Shingles is valid and
accepted when Summerfield Gardens, or an agent acting on its
behalf, purchased the shingles and unwrapped them. It further
argues that because the Arbitration Clause expressly delegates the
decision to the arbitrator, the arbitrator should determine the
scope of the arbitration agreement; alternatively, it argues that
the broad scope of the Arbitration Clause makes clear that
Summerfield Gardens' claims are covered by the clause. And finally,
it disputes Summerfield Gardens' argument that it waived its right
to compel arbitration.

Judge Robinson first examines whether there is a valid and
enforceable agreement to arbitrate. Summerfield Gardens argues that
an essential element of TAMKO's claim is lacking because: 1) the
Heritage Shingles purchased for Summerfield Gardens in 2006 and
2007 by E & W could have been manufactured before December 2004;
and 2) it did not assent to the Arbitration Clause because there is
no evidence that it knew of or agreed to the clause.

Judge Robinson finds that Summerfield Gardens has made no attempt
to satisfy burden to identify specific evidence demonstrating a
material disputed issue as to the existence of an arbitration
agreement, presenting only argument and no contrary testimony or
evidence. It does not dispute Fischer's testimony that shingles
purchased in 2006 and 2007 were likely manufactured after 2004, but
merely speculates that the Heritage Shingles purchased for E & W
could have been manufactured before December 2004. Accordingly,
Judge Robinson can infer that the shingle packages sold in 2006 and
2007 contained the Arbitration Clause.

Judge Robinson also finds persuasive the decisions of other federal
courts applying principles of agency law similar to that of
Illinois, which have found TAMKO's Arbitration Clause valid and
enforceable. The language on the packaging at issue stated that the
purchaser of the shingles was entering into a contract that was
binding on the owner of the property on which they were to be
installed, as well as on the purchaser itself. Further, it referred
to "a legally binding agreement between You and TAMKO" with "You"
defined to mean "the installer of the shingles and the owner of the
building on which these shingles will be installed." Accordingly,
Judge Robinson concludes that the Arbitration Clause is valid and
enforceable.

Turning to the question of whether the claims raised in the lawsuit
are within the scope of that agreement, Judge Robinson finds that
the arbitrator must decide matters going to the scope of the
Arbitration Clause, including determination of whether it
encompasses all of Summerfield Gardens' claims. The Arbitration
Clause requires provides that arbitration will be conducted
according to the rules of the American Arbitration Association
("AAA"). The Court and other courts in this District have held that
the incorporation of the AAA rules provides "clear and unmistakable
evidence" that the parties intended to delegate questions of
arbitrability to the arbitrator.

Finally, Judge Robinson examines whether TAMKO waived its right
compel arbitration. Summerfield Gardens argues that TAMKO has known
since at least November 2020 that the Heritage Shingles on the
seven Summerfield Gardens lots at issue were installed in 2006 or
later but did not assert a right to arbitrate until fifteen months
later, thus waiving any such right.

Although there is no rule as to what constitutes waiver of a
contractual right to arbitrate, the Tenth Circuit has articulated
the following as factors useful to making this assessment: (1)
whether the party's actions are inconsistent with the right to
arbitrate; (2) whether the litigation machinery has been
substantially invoked and the parties were well into preparation of
a lawsuit before the party notified the opposing party of an intent
to arbitrate; (3) whether a party either requested arbitration
enforcement close to the trial date or delayed for a long period
before seeking a stay; (4) whether a defendant seeking arbitration
filed a counterclaim without asking for a stay of the proceedings;
(5) whether important intervening steps [e.g., taking advantage of
judicial discovery procedures not available in arbitration] had
taken place; and (6) whether the delay affected, misled, or
prejudiced the opposing party.

After weighing the relevant factors, Judge Robinson finds that
Summerfield Gardens has not met its burden to show waiver. First,
she is not persuaded that TAMKO has substantially invoked the
"litigation machinery" in the case. Relatedly, she finds that TAMKO
did not unreasonably delay moving to compel arbitration. Further,
the Second Amended Complaint continues to assert that construction
of the buildings at issue began in 2003, and contains no allegation
that any of the shingles were purchased or installed after that
year. Finally, Summerfield Gardens has not shown that a delay
affected, misled, or prejudiced it.

Thus, Summerfield Gardens has not satisfied its heavy burden of
demonstrating that TAMKO's conduct foreclosed its right to seek
arbitration. On balance, the factors weigh against waiver,
especially in light of the strong federal presumption in favor of
enforcing arbitration agreements.

For these reasons, Judge Robinson grants TAMKO's Motion to Compel
Arbitration with respect to Summerfield Gardens' Lots 1, 2, 4, 18,
19, 20, and 21. The parties will file a status report no later than
March 20, 2023, advising it whether the arbitration proceeding is
ongoing, and whether a date has been set for the proceeding.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/23pp72w2 from Leagle.com.


TD AMERITRADE: Bruns Sues Over Unlawful Voice Print Recording
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK BRUNS, DAVID KAUFFMAN and CHRISTOPHER JORGENS, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TD
AMERITRADE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01369-L-JLB (S.D.
Cal., Sept. 10, 2022) alleges that the Defendant disregards
Plaintiffs and other California residents' statutorily protected
privacy rights and unlawfully examines or records their voices in
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Defendant utilizes a system that enables it to examine the
voice of anyone that calls it to determine the truth or falsity of
the callers' statements. The software combines audio, voice, and
artificial intelligence technologies to compare the callers' voices
to a comprehensive database of recordings and metrics.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated (and
continues to violate) CIPA because it uses a system which examines
or records California residents' "voice prints or voice stress
patterns . . . to determine the truth or falsity of statements"
without their express written consent.

TD Ameritrade is a stockbroker that offers an electronic trading
platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks,
preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex,
options, mutual funds, fixed income investments, margin lending,
and cash management services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (866) 219-3343
          E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429    
          E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com

TD AMERITRADE: Court Certifies Class of Clients in Klein Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD J. KLEIN, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated; and RODERICK FORD, Plaintiffs v. TD AMERITRADE
HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and FREDRIC TOMCZYK,
Defendants, Case No. 8:14CV396 (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska grants the
Plaintiff's renewed motion for Class Certification, Appointment of
Class Representative, and Appointment of Class Counsel.

The lawsuit is a putative class action for securities fraud under
15 U.S.C. Section 78a, et seq., involving a dispute about a
broker's compliance with its duty of best execution that was
remanded from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit -- Ford v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., 995 F.3d 616 (8th
Cir. 2021).

The gravamen of the Plaintiff's complaint is that "TD Ameritrade's
order routing practices violate the company's 'duty of best
execution' by systematically sending customer orders to trading
venues that pay the company the most money, rather than to venues
that provide the best outcome for customers."

The Court earlier certified a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)
consisting of "all clients of TD Ameritrade between Sept. 15, 2011
and Sept. 15, 2014 who placed orders that did not receive best
execution, in connection with which TD Ameritrade received either
liquidity rebates or payment for order flow, and who were thereby
damaged." The Eighth Circuit reversed the class certification
order, finding that the class failed to satisfy the Fed. R. Civ. P.
23 requirement that common issues predominate over individual
questions with respect to the economic loss class members suffered
as a result of the defendant's alleged violation of its duty of
best execution in making stock trades.

With respect to the earlier class, "the economic loss allegedly
caused by TD Ameritrade's order routing practices was 'the
difference between the price at which customers trades were
executed and the 'better' price allegedly available from an
alternative trading source.'" The Plaintiff had argued to the Court
and to the Eighth Circuit that the economic loss allegedly caused
by TD Ameritrade's order routing practices could have been
determined by an algorithm. The Court found the ultimate
determination of whether a class member had suffered economic loss
from a given securities transaction would require proof of the
circumstances surrounding each trade, the available alternative
prices, and the state of mind of each investor at the time of the
trade. The Eighth Circuit concluded that "despite advances in
technology, individual evidence and inquiry is still required to
determine economic loss for each class member."

The Eighth Circuit found class certification was improper for the
additional reason that the class as defined by the district court
was an impermissible "fail-safe class." It found the proposed class
incorporated two contested elements of liability -- failure to seek
best execution and economic loss.

The Plaintiff now moves for certification of the following class of
similarly situated persons pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): (1) all
clients of TD Ameritrade between Sept. 15, 2011 and Sept. 15, 2014;
(2) who placed orders that were electronically routed by TD
Ameritrade without manual review; (3) in connection with which TD
Ameritrade received either liquidity rebates or payment for order
flow; and (4) who paid a commission to TD Ameritrade for execution
of the order (the Class).

The Plaintiff also seeks certification of a class for injunctive
relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) as follows: "all clients of TD
Ameritrade between Sept. 15, 2011 and Sept. 15, 2014 who placed
orders in connection with which TD Ameritrade received either
liquidity rebates or payment for order flow and who continue to be
clients of TD Ameritrade (the "Injunctive Class")."

In the alternative, the Plaintiff moves pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4)
for certification of an "issues class" consisting of the following:
(1) all clients of TD Ameritrade between Sept. 15, 2011 and Sept.
15, 2014; (2) who placed orders that were electronically routed by
TD Ameritrade without manual review, and (3) in connection with
which TD Ameritrade received either liquidity rebates or payment
for order flow (the Issues Class). He argues that resolution of one
or more common issues would materially advance the disposition of
the litigation as a whole.

Mr. Ford is a professional investor, who has been a TD Ameritrade
customer since 2009, when the broker acquired thinkorswim, of which
he had been a customer since 2007. He has been trained in trading
methods and market structures. During the Class period, the
Plaintiff placed 3,556 trades with TD Ameritrade, paying a
commission on each executed trade. While placing orders with TD
Ameritrade, he has observed poor order execution quality such as
delays in filling his orders.

Mr. Ford contends that the proposed modified class definition
conforms to the Eighth Circuit order. He has modified the
definition of the class from those who placed "orders that did not
receive best execution" to those who placed orders "orders that
were electronically routed by TD Ameritrade without manual review."
Orders that received manual review would have been excluded from
the initial proposed class and the parties appear to agree that
orders that were electronically routed without manual review are
the focus of the lawsuit. It is those orders that are challenged as
violative of the best execution duty.

Mr. Ford has also refined the definition of the class members as
customers "who paid a commission to TD Ameritrade for execution of
an order." TD Ameritrade admits that the class nominally
encompasses the TD Ameritrade customers who placed a stock trade
during the relevant time period. It stopped charging commissions in
2019.

In opposition to class certification, the Defendant first argues
that the law of the case precludes class certification. Next it
argues that a TD Ameritrade customer would still need to show that
"the order received worse execution than it would have had it been
routed to a different market center" in order to recover
commissions paid as a result of TD Ameritrade's alleged fraud.

Judge Bataillon first finds that the Defendants law-of-the-case
argument is unavailing. The Eighth Circuit did not address a
commission-based theory of economic loss. The Court's findings on
numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation
were not disturbed by the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit found
the class deficient because the individual issues of proof of
economic loss by application of an algorithm predominated over
questions common to the class. Also, this Court's earlier finding
that the class members are entitled to a presumption of reliance
under the Supreme Court's decision in Affiliated Ute Citizens of
Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972) was not disturbed by the
Eighth Circuit.

Because it is impossible to prove how customers would have behaved
had their broker-agent disclosed its self-interested order routing
practices, reliance is properly presumed. Accordingly, the Eighth
Circuit's opinion provides no barrier to certification of the
revised Class. Further, the Plaintiff is not barred from seeking
commission-based damages at this time because, though he sought
commissions as part of his requested damages in his first motion to
certify, neither this Court nor the Court of Appeals discussed that
component.

Judge Bataillon finds the revised Class definition proposed solves
the infirmities the Eighth Circuit identified in its ruling on the
earlier class certification. The revised class relates to a
different class composition and involves determinations that were
not made by the Eighth Circuit. A damages assessment based on
commissions would be consistent for every class member. The only
individualized inquiry would be to determine the number of trades
executed by TD Ameritrade on each account during the class period,
which is a mathematical exercise. The calculation of commissions
paid by each class member is a straightforward calculation that can
be easily derived from the records maintained by TD Ameritrade.

Also, the revised Class proposed is not an impermissible
"fail-safe" class. No criteria for membership of the proposed Class
depends on a contested issue of liability. Membership in the
proposed class is objectively verifiable through TD Ameritrade's
records and is not subject to dispute.

The status as a TD Ameritrade customer, the placement of a trade,
electronic routing, and the payment of commissions can all be
determined from TD Ameritrade's records. Proving that TD Ameritrade
did not meet its duty of best execution during the Class Period
will require proof of the algorithms it used for routing its
customers' orders and a showing that the process it followed in
developing and implementing its systems. The Class must also show
that TD Ameritrade failed to disclose this practice to their
customers. Judge Bataillon agrees with the Plaintiff that "TD
Ameritrade's routing algorithms either comply with the duty of best
execution or they do not."

Assuming the Plaintiffs can prove that TD Ameritrade failed to
comply with its duty to seek best execution, Judge Bataillon notes
that the revised class seeks out-of-pocket losses suffered by TD
Ameritrade customers through the payment of commissions on those
trades, rather than what could have been gained had the trade been
routed to a trading venue that was not providing a "kickback" to TD
Ameritrade. The latter measure of economic loss would require
individualized proof, as noted by the Eighth Circuit, the former
does not.

Judge Bataillon agrees with the Plaintiffs that the payment of a
commission or fee to receive a certain execution quality when that
standard of execution is not provided constitutes a measurable,
out-of-pocket loss for TD Ameritrade's customers. This is
sufficient to satisfy the requirement of economic loss under the
federal securities laws. If TD Ameritrade is shown to have violated
securities laws, the customers who paid commissions in reliance on
TD Ameritrade fulfilling its duty of best execution should be able
to recover at least their out-of-pocket payments to TD Ameritrade.

Judge Bataillon finds no authority for the proposition that
out-of-pocket commissions do not qualify as a component of economic
loss for the purposes of securities fraud. The Defendant's argument
that the commissions paid to TD Ameritrade qualify as "damages" but
not as the "economic loss" that qualifies as an element of a
securities fraud claim defies logic. That an additional measure of
economic loss, if proved, may be available does not diminish the
availability of out-of-pocket commissions paid as one form of
compensable economic loss.

Absent certification, Judge Bataillon points out that TD
Ameritrade's routing practices would have to be proved individually
each TD Ameritrade customer. This would most likely involve expert
analysis in each case, which would be a substantial waste of
judicial resources and could result in inconsistent verdicts. The
alleged misconduct at issue is a uniform policy, practice, or
procedure applied to all members of the class. Because the cost of
prosecuting such individual cases would be prohibitive in view of
small recoveries, those harmed by TD Ameritrade's alleged
misconduct would have no recourse unless a class is certified.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's renewed motion to certify a class is
granted.

The following class is certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
(1) all clients of TD Ameritrade between Sept. 15, 2011 and Sept.
15, 2014; (2) who placed orders that were electronically routed by
TD Ameritrade without manual review; (3) in connection with which
TD Ameritrade received either liquidity rebates or payment for
order flow; and (4) who paid a commission to TD Ameritrade for
execution of the order.

Roderick Ford is appointed as the Class Representative and the law
firm of Levi and Korsinsky LLP as the Class Counsel.

The Defendants' motion for oral argument is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxe84rj from Leagle.com.


TD BANK: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Voice Prints
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL SMITH, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-01370-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal., Sept. 11, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant disregards Plaintiffs and other California residents'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully examines or
records their voices in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.

The Defendant utilizes a system that enables it to examine the
voice of anyone that calls it to determine the truth or falsity of
the callers' statements. The software combines audio, voice, and
artificial intelligence technologies to compare the callers' voices
to a comprehensive database of recordings and metrics.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated (and
continues to violate) CIPA because it uses a system which examines
or records California residents' "voice prints or voice stress
patterns . . . to determine the truth or falsity of statements"
without their express written consent. Thus, the Plaintiffs seek to
put an end to its unlawful use, examination, and recording of
Plaintiffs' and putative Class members' biometric voice prints,
says the suit.

Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC provides financial brokerage
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (866) 219-3343
          E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429    
          E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com

TESLA INC: Bid for Protective Order in Lynch Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN LYNCH, DAXTON HARTSFIELD, and SHAWN SAKHIZADA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TESLA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00597-RP
(W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, grants in
part and denies in part the Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for a
Protective Order, filed July 5, 2022.

Plaintiffs John Lynch, Daxton Hartsfield, and Shawn Sakhizada bring
the putative class action lawsuit, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, against their former employer Tesla
under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 2101, et sq. (the "WARN Act"), and Section 1400 of
the California Labor Code. They allege that Tesla violated the WARN
Act by failing to provide them and other potential class members
with 60 days advance written notice before it terminated their
employment in a "mass layoff."

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the action as a class
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and be designated
class representatives. They also seek compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.

In their Emergency Motion for a Protective Order, the Plaintiffs
seek a protective order under Rule 23(d) to prevent Tesla from
obtaining releases from individuals it is laying off.

When Tesla involuntarily terminates an employee, it requires the
terminated employee to execute a separation agreement providing the
employee with a severance package equivalent to one to two weeks of
base compensation in exchange for a full release of all legal
claims and potential claims against Tesla, including claims under
the WARN Act. The Plaintiffs allege that the separation agreements
executed after the lawsuit was filed are coercive, abusive, and
misleading because Tesla fails to inform terminated
employees/potential class members about "the pending litigation and
the rights that they are potentially giving up." They contend that
"these individuals are entitled to eight weeks of severance pay as
a matter of law 'in lieu of the WARN Act notice.'

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order striking all
releases that Tesla has procured since the suit was filed and issue
a protective order under Rule 23(d) to order Tesla "to Cease All
Communications with Class Members that Would Affect their Rights to
Participate in this Litigation."

Tesla first argues that the Court must deny the Plaintiffs' Motion
as moot "without any further analysis" and compel the case to
arbitration because they and all other potential class members
signed binding arbitration agreements containing class action
waivers. Judge Hightower finds that the arbitration agreements,
however, unequivocally permit the Plaintiffs and Tesla to seek
preliminary injunctive relief in federal court "to prevent
irreparable harm pending the conclusion of any such arbitration"
and "to preserve the status quo prior to and/or in aid of
arbitration are permitted."

Therefore, Judge Hightower finds that the Court has the authority
to rule on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order before
addressing Tesla's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration.

In the alternative, Tesla argues that the Motion should be denied
because the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden under Rule
23(d). Although the District Court has not certified the case as a
class action, the Plaintiffs invoke Rule 23(d)(1)(B), which
provides that a court may issue orders that: require -- to protect
class members and fairly conduct the action -- giving appropriate
notice to some or all class members of: (i) any step in the action;
(ii) the proposed extent of the judgment; or (iii) the members'
opportunity to signify whether they consider the representation
fair and adequate, to intervene and present claims or defenses, or
to otherwise come into the action.

Tesla submits that "there is no evidence before the Court that any
putative plaintiff received the standard severance agreement after
the lawsuit filed on June 19, 2022 and executed it." But the
Plaintiffs have submitted evidence that Tesla has solicited
putative class to sign separation agreements after the suit
commenced.

Judge Hightower finds that any separation agreements issued or
executed after the Plaintiff filed the case may be misleading
because they fail to inform potential class members of the lawsuit
and the rights that they are potentially giving up under the WARN
Act.

Having carefully weighed the need for a limitation and potential
interference with the parties' rights, Judge Hightower finds that
an order under Rule 23(d) is appropriate in the case. She further
finds, however, that the specific relief the Plaintiffs request --
ordering Tesla to cease all communications with class members and
striking all releases Tesla has procured since the suit was filed
-- is too broad.

Accordingly, she grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Protective Order. She orders Tesla to notify all
terminated employees who have received or executed separation
agreements on or after June 19, 2022, of the existence of the
lawsuit. Tesla must continue to issue such notices until the merits
of the Plaintiffs' claims are resolved in federal court or in
arbitration proceedings. She further orders the parties to confer
and submit a joint proposed notice. All other relief not expressly
granted is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/55c324d2 from Leagle.com.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Forsy Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALMAN ALDUBI PROVIDENT
AND PENSION FUNDS LTD., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED, et
al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04660-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Lead Plaintiff
Gerald Forsy the moves the Court for an Order:

   1. certifying the action to proceed as a class action
      pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
      23(b)(3);

   2. appointing him to serve as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP to serve as Class Counsel
      pursuant to Rule 23(g).

Teva Pharmaceutical is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical
company with headquarters in Tel Aviv, Israel. It specializes
primarily in generic drugs, but other business interests include
active pharmaceutical ingredients and, to a lesser extent,
proprietary pharmaceuticals.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UDZhoU at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Robert W. Killorin, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          1617 John F Kennedy Blvd No. 1550
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com
                  rkillorin@faruqilaw.com


TOUCHSTONE STRATEGIES: Johnson Suit Seeks Unpaid OT for Nurses
--------------------------------------------------------------
LATISHA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOUCHSTONE STRATEGIES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:22-cv-01032 (W.D. Tex., September 20, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated nurses overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ms. Johnson has been employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
nurse from January of 2018 until the present.

Touchstone Strategies, LLC is a business advisory firm,
headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Colby Qualls, Esq.
         Josh Sanford, Esq.
         SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
         Kirkpatrick Plaza
         10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
         Little Rock, AR 72211
         Telephone: (800) 615-4946
         Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
         E-mail: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

TOWER RESEARCH: Averts Class Action Suit Over Illegal Spoofing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that A U.S. judge
ruled on Sept. 27 that a lawsuit by Korean traders accusing New
York-based high-frequency trading firm Tower Research Capital LLC
and its founder Mark Gorton of conducting illegal "spoofing" trades
at their expense cannot proceed as a class action.

U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood in Manhattan said the traders fell
"far short" of establishing that common issues of law or fact
predominated over individual questions, and therefore class
certification on their unjust enrichment claim was improper.

Daniel Sommers at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll represents the
plaintiffs, while Noah Levine at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr represents the defendants. Neither immediately respond to
requests for comment.

Tower was accused of having rigged prices of KOSPI 200 futures
contracts in 2012, making an estimated 53.8% of all such trades on
South Korea's "night market," by placing and quickly canceling
trades or acting as its own counterparty.

The plaintiffs, who traded these contracts, said this created
artificial supply and demand, enabling Tower to sell contracts at
inflated prices and buy them at deflated prices.

They sued on behalf of entities that traded with Tower in the
contracts during the night market in 2012.

But in a 26-page decision, Wood said the plaintiffs offered neither
a credible theory nor convincing empirical evidence to show why the
prices they got resulted from Tower's spoofing.

She said the inability of a plaintiffs' expert to substantiate
whether Tower altered any prices was a "glaring flaw," and that the
expert's model did not distinguish trades made at prices that had
not allegedly been manipulated.

Wood said the expert's use of "arbitrary assumptions" and
"misleading labels" left the plaintiffs bereft of "generalized
proof to identify and measure the artificial prices created by
Tower's algorithm."

The judge also said individual issues would predominate in efforts
to show that Tower traded at the plaintiffs' expense.

Wood ordered both sides to submit a joint letter by Oct. 25 to
discuss the next steps in the case.

Her decision came 15 months after a federal appeals court narrowed
the lawsuit, saying Tower's trading was not subject to U.S.
commodities law.

The state law-based unjust enrichment claim is the only remaining
claim, Wood said.

The case is Choi v. Tower Research Capital LLC, U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, No. 14-09912.

For plaintiffs: Daniel Sommers of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

For defendants: Noah Levine of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr [GN]

TRUE BLUE: Glover Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Staffing Specialists
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAZZCELYN D. GLOVER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUE BLUE, INC., and PEOPLEREADY,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00736 (M.D. Tenn., September 20,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated construction
laborers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Glover was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
staffing specialist in in Nashville, Tennessee.

True Blue, Inc. is a provider of specialized workforce solutions,
with its principal office located at 1015 A Street, Tacoma,
Washington.

PeopleReady, Inc. is a staffing company, headquartered in Tacoma,
Washington. [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
         Telephone: (901) 754-8001
         Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
         E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com

UNION PACIFIC: Bid for Summary Judgment in Donahue Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN DONAHUE, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00448-MMC (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants Union Pacific's Motion for Summary
Judgment, filed Aug. 5, 2022.

The Plaintiffs allege each said plaintiff formerly worked as a
conductor for Union Pacific, a position that required him to "read
and interpret multicolored railroad traffic signal lights on signal
masts." They further allege that each said plaintiff was
"responsible for train movement" and, consequently, was required to
be "certified by the Federal Railroad Administration ['FRA'],"
which agency "allows railroads to certify employees through
color-vision examinations." According to them, because they were
required to be certified, they were required, under Union Pacific's
"Fitness-for-Duty program," to undergo "color-vision testing" on a
"periodic" basis.

The Plaintiffs allege that, prior to April 2016, Union Pacific's
color-vision testing protocol required employees responsible for
train movement to pass "the 14-Plate Ishihara test" and, if they
failed such test, to pass an "alternative" test that "used existing
train signal masts." They further allege that, under such testing
protocol, each time they were required to periodically undergo
color-vision testing, they were able to pass either the Ishihara
test or the alternative test.

According to the Plaintiffs, Union Pacific, in April 2016, changed
its testing protocol to require that, if an employee did not pass
the Ishihara test, he/she would be required to pass a new
alternative test known as "the Light Cannon test," which test, the
Plaintiffs assert, "does not assess the employee's ability to
recognize and distinguish between colors of railroad signals."

The Plaintiffs allege that when each said plaintiff was required to
submit to a periodic color-vision test under the new protocol, each
failed both the Ishihara test and the Light Cannon test and,
consequently, Union Pacific imposed on each said plaintiff
"permanent work restrictions" prohibiting him from working in a
position that required him to identify colored signals, i.e., the
position he held with Union Pacific.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert two claims under
the Americans With Disabilities Act, specifically, Count I, titled
"Disability Discrimination - Disparate Treatment," and Count II,
titled "Disability Discrimination - Disparate Impact."

Union Pacific seeks summary judgment on the ground that the
Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable 300-day statute of
limitations.

It is undisputed that each plaintiff submitted a claim to the EEOC
more than 300 days after the asserted discriminatory act, namely,
the date on which Union Pacific imposed permanent restrictions that
precluded him from performing his job. In particular, Donahue filed
an EEOC claim on April 24, 2020, a date more than 300 days after
May 24, 2017, the date Union Pacific imposed permanent restrictions
on him Campbell filed an EEOC claim on April 10, 2020, a date more
than 300 days after May 22, 2018, the date Union Pacific imposed
permanent restrictions on him, and Goss filed an EEOC claim on Dec.
10, 2020, a date more than 300 days after Union Pacific imposed
permanent restrictions on him. Accordingly, in the absence of an
applicable exception, Judge Chesney holds that the Plaintiffs'
claims are time-barred.

In that regard, the Plaintiffs rely on the equitable tolling
doctrine set forth in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414
U.S. 538 (1974) and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345
(1983), under which "the filing of a class action tolls the statute
of limitations as to all asserted members of the class."

In Harris v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Case No.
16-cv-381-JFB-SMB, the class action on which plaintiffs rely, the
plaintiffs therein asserted in their First Amended Complaint, filed
Feb. 19, 2016, ADA disparate treatment and disparate impact claims
on behalf on a putative class of Union Pacific employees, defined
in the FAC as "individuals who were removed from service over their
objection, and/or suffered another adverse employment action,
during their employment with Union Pacific for reasons related to a
Fitness-for-Duty evaluation at any time from 300 days before the
earliest date that a named Plaintiff filed an administrative charge
of discrimination to the resolution of the  action."

Union Pacific, for purposes of the instant motion, does not dispute
that the Plaintiffs were members of the class alleged in the Harris
FAC. It argues the tolling period ended, however, on Aug. 17, 2018,
the date the Harris plaintiffs, in conformity with a Progression
Order issued by the District of Nebraska, filed a motion for class
certification. In that motion, the Harris plaintiffs, with respect
to their disparate treatment claim, expressly sought certification
on behalf of a class narrower than had been asserted in the Harris
FAC, which narrowed class, Union Pacific argues, did not include
Donahue, Campbell, or Goss. Further, the Harris plaintiffs did not
seek class certification as to their disparate impact claim.

As Union Pacific points out, however, the employees who failed
Union Pacific's color-vision testing and remained members of the
narrowed class were those employees who were subject to a
fitness-for-duty examination as a result of a reportable health
event, e.g., as noted above, a heart attack, a seizure of any kind,
or a significant vision change, whereas the Plaintiffs in the
instant case, as also noted, were subject to examinations as a
result of FRA's periodic certification requirements.

Accordingly, as the Plaintiffs were not included in the narrowed
class definition set forth in the Harris plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, they are not entitled to tolling beyond Aug.
17, 2018, the date on which the Harris plaintiffs filed their
motion for class certification.

In sum, as it is undisputed that each plaintiff filed his EEOC
complaint more than 300 days after the date on which the Harris
plaintiffs' motion for class certification was filed, their ADA
claims are time-barred. For these reasons, Union Pacific's motion
for summary judgment is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/zx5hhpju from Leagle.com.


UNITED PARCEL: Thistlewaite Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEPHEN THISTLEWAITE, individually, and on behalf
of a Class of all other persons similarly situated Plaintiff v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
30-2022-01270829-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 23,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:22-cv-01753 to the proceeding.

The Complaint asserts "class allegations" for (a) failure to pay
all wages owed to Class Members who were either discharged, laid
off, or resigned; (b) failing to pay all wages owed to the Class
Members twice monthly; (c) failing to pay Class Members all wages
owed, including all meal and rest period premium wages; (d) failing
to maintain accurate records of Class Members' earned wages and
meal periods; (e) failing to reimburse reasonable business
expenses; and (f) unfair business practices.

United Parcel Service, Inc. is an American multinational shipping &
receiving and supply chain management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
          Jennifer Svanfeldt, Esq.
          Amanda M. Osowski, Esq.
          GBG LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3330
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 358-2810
          Facsimile: (213) 995-6382
          E-mail: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
                  jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com
                  amandaosowski@gbgllp.com

UNITED PROPANE: Brummett Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL BRUMMETT, On Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. UNITED PROPANE
GAS, INC. and DCC PROPANE, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00037-TBR-LLK
(W.D. Ky.), the Parties agree, stipulate, and jointly request that
the Court enter an order that:

   a. conditionally certifies this case as a collective action
      under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) consisting of all current and
      former employees of United Propane Gas, Inc. or one of its
      affiliates (UPG) and/or DCC Propane, LLC (DCC) who were
      classified as exempt from overtime pay, paid on a salaried
      basis, and paid an amount lower than $35,568 per year (or
      the weekly ($684) or biweekly ($1,368) equivalent) in at
      least one workweek at any time from January 1, 2020 to the
      present;

   b. approves the stipulated Notice and Consent Form;

   c. within seven days following the Court's granting of this
      Motion, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff’s counsel an

      Excel spreadsheet containing the names, last known mailing
      address(es), last known email address(es), last known
      telephone number(s), dates of employment, and location(s)
      of employment for all individuals who meet this class
      definition;

   d. within seven days of receiving the Class List from
      the Defendants, Plaintiff and her counsel shall cause the
      approved Notice and Consent Forms to issue to potential
      Opt-In Plaintiffs via U.S. Mail and email at their initial
      expense without prejudice to seeking reimbursement and
      shall include a self-addressed, postage-prepaid envelope
      with the initial mailing;

   e. Defendants are not required to post or otherwise
      disseminate the Notice and Consent forms to any former or
      current employees;

   f. Plaintiff's counsel shall cause a reminder notice to be
      sent as set forth in the attached proposed Order;

   g. the opt-in period shall be 60 days from the date of
      mailing of the Court-authorized Notice and Consent Form;
      and

   h. within seven days of the notice period closing, the
      Parties shall exchange Rule 26(a) initial disclosures,
      which shall include the pay and time data for all
      Plaintiffs who have joined the case and any documentation
      Plaintiffs intend to rely upon to support their FLSA
      claims.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SwHwpz at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          J. Chris Sanders , Esq.
          BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC (Of Counsel)
          1041 Goss Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40217
          Telephone: (502) 587-2002
          E-mail: csanders@bccnlaw.com

The Attorneys for Defendant United Propane Gas, Inc., are:

          J. Keith Coates, Jr., Esq.
          J. Chadwick Hatmaker, Esq.
          J. Keith Coates, Jr.
          WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT,
          ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC
          P.O. Box 900
          Knoxville, TN 37901-0900
          Telephone: (865) 215-1054
          Facsimile: (865) 215-1015
          E-mail: kcoates@wmbac.com
                  chatmaker@wmbac.com

The Attorneys for Defendant DCC Propane, are:

          Ryan M. Martin, Esq.
          Katharine C. Weber, Esq.
          Ryan M. Martin, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          201 E. Fifth Street, 26 Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 898-0050
          Facsimile: (513) 898-0051
          E-mail: katharine.weber@jacksonlewis.com
          ryan.martin@jacksonlewis.com

UNITED PROPANE: Brummett Suit Wins Conditional Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL BRUMMETT, On Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. UNITED PROPANE
GAS, INC. and DCC PROPANE, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00037-TBR-LLK
(W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Thomas B. Russell entered an order
granting the Parties' joint motion and stipulation for conditional
class certification and notice to putative collective action
members.

   -- The stay is now lifted.

   -- The following class of individuals is conditionally
      certified in accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair
      Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):

      "All current and former employees of United Propane Gas,
      Inc. or one of its affiliates and/or DCC Propane, LLC who
      were classified as exempt from overtime pay, paid on a
      salaried basis, and paid an amount lower than $35,568 per
      year (or the weekly ($684) or biweekly ($1,368)
      equivalent) in at least one workweek at any time from
      January 1, 2020 to the present."

   -- The Defendants shall, within seven days of the date this
      Order is entered, provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel an
      Excel spreadsheet containing the name, last known mailing
      address(es), last known email address(es), last known
      telephone number(s), dates of employments, and location of
      employment for each current or former employee (Class
      List).

United Propane delivers propane gas and heating services. The
Company provides propane cylinders for use in space heaters, and
propane furnaces.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DXyCgF at no extra charge.[CC]


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Graham v. Congress Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, dismisses the case,
FREDRICK ERNEST GRAHAM, Plaintiff v. U.S. CONGRESS OF UNITED
STATES, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00616-PLC (E.D. Mo.), without
prejudice.

The Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant, who is currently
incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Thomson,
Illinois. On June 6, 2022, he submitted a handwritten document
titled "28 U.S.C. Section 1346(a)(1)," naming the "U.S. Congress of
United States" as defendant. The document contained numerous odd
statements, including the Plaintiff's opening request for
"unemployment insurance on all unoccupied citizens so he can
electronically monitor their names, birth dates, and S.S.N."
Elsewhere, however, he appeared to allege excessive force by
correctional officers, so the Court construed the document as an
attempt to file a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed two supplements. The first
appeared to be a press release concerning an investigation into
alleged abuses at USP Thomson. The second purported to seek
"Sanctions of War Crimes," and accused the U.S. Congress of failing
"to fund the Kevlar bullet-proof book bags for children and Kevlar
head gear for children, etc."

On Aug. 10, 2022, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint on a Court form, as required. He was also
directed to either file a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis or pay the entire filing fee. The Court gave him 30 days
in which to comply.

On Aug. 22, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a "Declaration" with the
Court, in which he alleged that he had been injured after his
cellmate "pulled him from the top bunk," that he had lost all of
his property, and that he had "almost been killed for no reason by
prison guards." He sought a "T.R.O.," along with "criminal charges
on any chain of command and staff who processed cell assignments."

On Aug. 26, 2022, the Plaintiff submitted a document titled
"Notice," in which he sought "the removal of the minority status of
(all) Middle-Eastern African and American colored races that are
endangered by violence." He also requested a six-month continuance
because he was being extorted.

That same day, the Court received a document titled "Motion for
Extension of Time." Much of the filing was devoted to seeking
"contempt of court sanctions against U.S. Congressional staff" due
to purported "acts of terroristic activity." Based on the heading
of the motion, the Court construed it as a motion for an extension
of time to file his previously-ordered amended complaint, and gave
him an additional 21 days.

On Sept. 15, 2022, the Court received the Plaintiff's amended
complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The
amended complaint is the operative pleading.

The Plaintiff's amended complaint is on a Court-provided 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 form. He purports to bring the case as a "class action
lawsuit" on behalf of himself, "Middle Eastern Africans," and
"United States Citizens." He names as defendants the "U.S. Congress
of the United States," the Department of the Treasury, the Library
of Congress, the U.S. Copyright Office, and the Solicitor General's
Office.

The "Statement of Claim" consists of baffling allegations that the
Court has had difficulty understanding. The Plaintiff assert that
citizens of color have been endangered as the result of
"terroristic mass killings during the registration of his patent.
He claims this "patent" has been in the U.S. Copyright Office and
the Library of Congress, and that he is "seeking funding of his 10
Corona Life books, which are manuscripts/portfolios" proposing the
establishment of "a militia of 100,000 civilians internationally to
protect the lives of citizens during migrations."

As best the Court can tell, the Plaintiff wants somebody to
manufacture his "mask and drones" with oxygen tanks for COVID-19.
The Plaintiff also appears to be requesting that new bulletproof
Kevlar vests, equipped with shoulder mounted cameras, be supplied
to people due to shootings in "grocery stores and in public
schools."

In addition, the Plaintiff notes that the United States has funded
"over one trillion dollars of citizens' monies into an invasion in
Ukraine against Russian soil that endangers the lives of our
civilians in the United States." He further calls for an evacuation
plan to cover the United States and allow its citizens to be able
to enter other nations in the event of ground wars in U.S. or
nuclear strikes.

Beyond the funding of his patents and infrastructure, the Plaintiff
"demands monthly checks for all citizens of minority status" until
they can undertake a "Great Migration." He concludes the "Statement
of Claim" by insisting that he gave his "portfolio" -- containing
his "plans" -- to the Library of Congress and the Solicitor General
"a full year before the migration of Ukraine civilians." The
failure to fund his plans "forced citizens to die."

In the "Injuries" section of the form complaint, the Plaintiff
states that "Middle-Eastern Africans and other minorities have been
murdered in schools, grocery stores, and places of prayer by local
law enforcement agencies and by white supremacist individuals."

Along with his amended complaint, the Plaintiff filed a document
titled "Process Service on the Solicitor General." In the filing,
he complains that he "has been subjected to unnecessary use of
force and placed in a restraint cell," that he has been "placed
inside chains for six days," and that money has been wrongfully
deducted from his account.

The Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who has filed a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against various
agencies of the federal government. Because he is proceeding in
forma pauperis, Judge Ross has reviewed his complaint under 28
U.S.C. Section 1915. Based on that review, he has determined that
it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims.
Furthermore, even if jurisdiction was present, the case is subject
to dismissal for failure to state a claim and frivolity.

First, Judge Ross holds that the Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate that the Defendants have waived their sovereign
immunity. As there is no waiver, sovereign immunity is intact, and
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.
Therefore, the case must be dismissed without prejudice.

Next, Judge Ross finds that the Plaintiff has not carried his
burden of establishing that he has standing to sue. Specifically,
he presents no allegations showing that he has suffered an injury
in fact. Instead, the ostensible injuries that he indicates in the
amended complaint have all occurred to other people, none of them
identified by name, but broadly including "Middle-Eastern Africans
and other minorities," victims of gun violence, and victims of the
invasion in Ukraine. The Plaintiff makes no attempt to describe any
personal loss or injury he has suffered, much less forge a causal
connection between such injury and the conduct of the Defendants.
For these reasons, he has not proven that he has standing to sue.
Because he has no standing, the Court lacks federal subject matter
jurisdiction to hear his claims. Therefore, this action must be
dismissed without prejudice.

Even if the Court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the
action, Judge Ross finds it would be subject to dismissal on
initial review for failure to state a claim and for frivolity
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. The Plaintiff has not
demonstrated a plausible claim for relief. That is to say, he
presents absolutely no facts establishing that any of the
Defendants committed misconduct or harmed him in any way. Rather
than asserting a cause of action, or actually describing what the
Defendants did or did not do, the amended complaint is devoted to
his proposals regarding bulletproof vests, drones, and evacuation
plans. In short, even liberally construing the amended complaint,
the Plaintiff has not asserted sufficient facts to state a claim.

Judge Ross has determined that the Plaintiff's often bizarre
allegations not only fail to state a claim, but are fantastic and
delusional. As best he can tell, the Plaintiff sent a copyrighted
"portfolio" containing his $1 trillion "infrastructure" plan to
defendants, and believes that the Defendants' failure to follow
this plan has led to an untold number of deaths from mass
shootings, COVID-19, and invasion. He is therefore suing to seek
implementation of his plan. These allegations have no arguable
basis in law or fact, rise to the level of the wholly incredible,
and are frivolous. For this reason as well, this action must be
dismissed.

Finally, Judge Ross holds that venue is not proper in the Court.
Rather, the Plaintiff's complained-of actions occurred at USP
Thomson, which is located in the Northern District of Illinois. He
will dismiss these claims without prejudice for improper venue.

Accordingly, Judge Ross grants the Plaintiff's motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff must pay an initial
partial filing fee of $16.58 within 21 days of the date of the
Order. He is instructed to make his remittance payable to "Clerk,
United States District Court," and to include upon it: (1) his
name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and
(4) the statement that the remittance is for an original
proceeding.

The action is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order of
dismissal will be entered therewith.

An appeal from the Order of dismissal would not be taken in good
faith.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/3n8hmxxp from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Law Firm Provides Update on Camp Lejeune Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Esq., of Miller & Zois, LLC disclosed that
its lawyers are representing victims looking to bring a Camp
Lejeune lawsuit for injuries and deaths from toxic chemicals and
water contamination on this Marine Corps base.

The law firm's attorneys are excited that after many years of
suffering and death, reasonable settlement payouts may finally be
offered for a Camp Lejeune settlement. The legislation that
Congress passed allows victims to file a Camp Lejeune water
contamination lawsuit.

This page provides the latest Camp Lejeune lawsuit news and
updates, explains who is eligible for compensation, and projects
settlement amounts in these toxic water contamination lawsuits. Its
last Camp Lejeune litigation update was on Tuesday,
September 27, 2022, at 8:52 a.m.

Predictions on per person Camp Lejeune settlement compensation
More discussion of expected settlement amounts
Reading the new statute: the nuts and bolts of bringing a Camp
Lejeune toxic water lawsuit

Contact Our Camp Lejeune Lawyers
If you have a potential Camp Lejeune lawsuit for an injury or death
of a loved one, call our lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or get a
free online consultation. The law firm's fee is a 33% contingency
fee, not the 40% you may have heard from other Camp Lejeune
lawyers.

There is no fee or cost unless you get financial compensation for
the harm that was done to you. Our Camp Lejeune lawyers are on
these lawsuits 24 hours a day.

Legislative Update: Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Lawsuit

September 27, 2022

Since the CLJA was signed into law on August 10, 2022, a total of
41 Camp Lejeune civil lawsuits have been field under the new law in
the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of over 100
individual plaintiffs.

All these are Camp Lejeune "legacy cases" that were originally
filed years ago only to be dismissed in 2016 based on the
application of the North Carolina statute of repose. Since the
plaintiffs in these cases already submitted administrative claims
when the originally filed, they were not obligated to re-submit
those claims and were therefore eligible to file right away.

These are good canaries in the coal mine for how the DOJ and the
court will handle Camp Lejeune lawsuits.

September 26, 2022

How many Camp Lejeune lawsuits will be filed? Some Camp Lejeune
attorneys suggested in a recent Reuters article the number could be
as high as 500,000. But many attorneys have been revising
projections down in the last few weeks. We have heard as low as
$50,000.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle. There will not be 500,000
viable Camp Lejeune claims. If there were 500,000 claims with an
average Camp Lejeune settlement of $300,000, that would be $150
billion. There is no chance of that.

Similarly, based on the flood of cases our law firm has received,
50,000 seems way too low. Our guess from the beginning has been
between 100,000 and 200,000. Nothing has happened to change that
projection.

September 23, 2022

Sadly, so many of the calls our Camp Lejeune lawyers are getting
are wrongful death lawsuits. Many family members who lost a loved
one many years ago seem confused why they would have a claim after
so much time has passed. So let's clarify a few things about Camp
Lejeune wrongful death lawsuits.

First, a CLJA wrongful death lawsuit is not limited to Marine Corps
veterans stationed at Camp Lejeune. Anyone (veteran, family member,
civilian employee) who lived or worked at Camp Lejeune for a
minimum of one month is eligible to bring a claim under the CLJA.
If you had a family member who lived or worked at Lejeune but has
since passed away, their estate can bring a wrongful death claim.
The CLJA allows claims even when the person died years ago and even
after their estate has long been closed out in probate.

Second, you can bring a Lejeune wrongful death claim for the loss
of your family member even if that death occurred nearly 70 years
ago. If a former resident or employee of Camp Lejeune has already
died as a result of a disease connected to contaminated water, the
CLJA allows wrongful death claims to be brought on their behalf.

Wrongful death claims under the CLJA must comply with North
Carolina law, which requires death claims to be brought by the
personal representative (PR) of the decedent's estate. For someone
who died a long time ago, the estate may need to be reopened. If
the PR is no longer available, a new PR can be appointed for the
estate.

September 20, 2022

There will not be a Camp Lejeune class action lawsuit, according to
a judge's ruling on Sept. 19 denying pretrial consolidation. This
is mostly a good thing.

At the end of August, a group of law firms filed a motion asking
that all Camp Lejeune lawsuits in the Eastern District of North
Carolina be consolidated for pretrial discovery purposes. The
request was seeking something similar to a class action MDL for the
Camp Lejeune water contamination lawsuits.

In the first month since the CLJA was passed, over 5,000 Camp
Lejeune cases have already been filed with JAG and many more are
expected. However, the federal court in North Carolina rejected
this request without explanation.

But our Camp Lejeune lawyers support the ruling. The DOJ and the
courts already have a plan for how the Camp Lejeune class action
lawsuits are going to be handled, treating them as individual cases
is will lead to victims getting a faster and more appropriate Camp
Lejeune settlement.

These claims are not going to be typical class action lawsuits, so
classic consolidation similar to an MDL is not necessary or
appropriate.

September 19, 2022

Over 5,000 CLJA claims have already been brought by Camp Lejeune
victims and it has only been a month since the new law was passed.
This news might leave many victims wondering if there will be
enough money to award compensation to everyone. The official cost
analysis for the CLJA prepared by the Congressional Budget Office
estimated that Camp Lejeune water contamination claims would cost
the federal government a minimum of $7 billion and possibly much
more (as our attorneys expect based on the expected number of
suits).

This estimate is a clear indication that government is ready and
willing to pay full settlement compensation to Camp Lejeune victims
who file meritorious claims. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Stone, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALARIC STONE, ERIC
JACKSON, and MICHAEL MARCENELLE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, in his
official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, LLOYD J.
AUSTIN, III, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense,
LINDA L. FAGAN, in her official capacity as Commandant of the Coast
Guard, and BRIAN K. PENOYER, in his official capacity as Assistant
Commandant for Human Resources of the Coast Guard, Case No.
4:22-cv-00825-P (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:

   1. certifying a class, under Rule 23(b)(2), consisting of:

      "all members of the United States Coast Guard who

         (a) are subject to a mandate of the Department of
             Defense, Department of Homeland Security, or Coast
             Guard to receive a COVID-19 vaccine,

         (b) submitted a request for religious accommodation
             regarding such based on a sincerely held religious
             belief, and

         (c) have received or will receive a purported final
             denial of such request from the Department of
             Defense, Department of Homeland Security, or Coast
             Guard;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class counsel, under
      Rule 23(g); and

   3. granting a Class-wide temporary restraining order (TRO)
      and preliminary injunction, under Rule 65, restraining and
      enjoining the Defendants and their agents, employees, and
      successors in office, and all other persons in active
      concert or participation with them, from enforcing,
      threatening to enforce, attempting to enforce, or
      otherwise requiring compliance with certain COVID-19
      vaccine mandates—including Department of Defense's August
      24, 2021 Order and the Coast Guard's August 2021 Order,
      Coast Guard ALCOAST 305/21, Coast Guard ALCOAST 315/21,
      and Coast Guard ALCOAST 270/22 – against Plaintiffs or any

      member of the Class, 1 and enjoining Defendants and their
      agents, employees, and successors in office, and all other
      persons in active concert or participation with them, from
      taking any adverse action against Plaintiffs or any member
      of the Class on the basis of this lawsuit or of any
      Plaintiff's or Class member's request for religious
      accommodation related to the Mandates.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 16, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xXfRX4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen Crampton, Esq.
          Michael McHale, Esq.
          Mary Catherine Hodes, Esq.
          Nathan Loyd,. Esq.
          THOMAS MORE SOCIETY
          PO Box 4506
          Tupelo, MS 38803
          Telephone: (662)255-9439
          E-mail: scrampton@thomasmoresociety.org
                  mmchale@thomasmoresociety.org
                  mchodes@thomasmoresociety.org
                  nathaniel.loyd@thomasmoresociety.org

               - and -

          Adam S. Hochschild, Esq.
          HOCHSCHILD LAW FIRM
          PO Box 401
          Plainfield, VT 05667
          Telephone: (314) 503-0326
          E-mail: adam@hochschildlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul M. Jonna, Esq.
          LiMandri & Jonna LLP
          P.O. Box 9120
          Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
          Telephone: (858) 759-994
          E-mail: pjonna@limandri.com

               - and -

          Charles W. Fillmore, Esq.
          H. Dustin Fillmore III, Esq.
          THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          201 Main Street, Suite 700
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 332-2351
          E-mail: chad@fillmorefirm.com
                  dusty@fillmorefirm.com

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Court Dismisses Smith Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHA SMITH, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 2:20-cv-02086-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Timothy J. Savage entered an order dismissing the Plaintiffs'
motion for:

  -- class certification and appointment of class counsel; and  

  -- unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
     settlement.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rgRrE7 at no extra charge.[CC]

UTILITY TRAFFIC: Hunter Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIEL HUNTER, on behalf of himself and all
"aggrieved employees," Plaintiff v. UTILITY TRAFFIC CONTROL
SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-22-601352, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on Sept. 23, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-05435-KAW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff in this complaint asserts a single cause of action
for civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Utility Traffic Control Services, Inc. is a traffic control
services provider.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron B. Silva, Esq.
          Charles R. Hellstrom, Esq.
          MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP
          555 Capitol Mall, Suite 850
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (916) 503-4000
          E-mail: asilva@murphyaustin.com
                  chellstrom@murphyaustin.com

VELOCITY TRANSPORT: Lopez Labor Code Suit Goes to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FRANCISCO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VELOCITY TRANSPORT LLC; AMAZON.COM,
LLC; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case
No. 37-2022-00010284-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on September
19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-01414-RSH-RBB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
regular pay or minimum wages, failure to provide lawful meal
periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statement, failure to timely pay
wages upon separation of employment, and unlawful and unfair
business practices.

Velocity Transport LLC is a transportation services company, with
its principal place of business in La Mesa, California.

Amazon.com, LLC is an electronic commerce company, with its
principal place of business in Seattle, Washington.

Amazon Logistics, Inc. is a provider of delivery services, with its
principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
         Nikolas T. Djordjevski, Esq.
         Yousaf M. Jafri, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Telephone: (858) 652-3100
         Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
         E-mail: tim.johnson@ogletree.com
                 nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com
                 yousaf.jafri@ogletree.com

VERIFIED MOVING: Grajeda Suit Wins FLSA Collective Action Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA GRAJEDA, et. al. v.
VERIFIED MOVING PROS, LLC, and DONALD LINA, individually, Case No.
0:22-cv-61471-WPD (S.D. Fla.,), the Hon. Judge William P.
Dimitrouleas entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b):

   1. The Court hereby conditionally certifies an FLSA
      collective action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA for the
      following Overtime Collective:

          "All Fronters, Sales Representatives, and Customer
          Service Representatives who worked for Defendants
          during the three years preceding this lawsuit who were
          required to work in excess of 40 hours in any workweek
          and were not compensated overtime wages.

   2. The Plaintiff, Andrea Grajeda, is hereby as the
      Representative of the Collective with authority to
      negotiate and appear at settlement conferences and
      mediations on behalf the class;

   3. The law firm of USA Employment Lawyers -- Jordan Richards
      PLLC and attorneys Jordan Richards, Esquire, and Jake
      Blumstein, Esquire are hereby appointed as counsel for the
      Collective;

   4. The Court hereby orders expedited discovery production
      from the Defendants, within 21 calendar days of this
      Order, of a complete list, electronically in an Excel
      spreadsheet, of each and every Fronter, Sales
      Representative and Customer Service Representative listed
      alphabetically from "A" to "Z" -- including their last
      known home address, cellular telephone number, and e-mail
      addresses, with a separate field corresponding with each
      name -- who was ever employed as a Fronter, Sales
      Representative and/or Customer Service Representative in
      the United States by Defendants at any time between August
      8, 2019, and the date of this Order;

   5. The Plaintiff's counsel is hereby authorized to send a
      Court-Approved Notice via first class mail, email and/or
      text message to all such persons about their rights to
      opt-in to this collective action by filing a Consent to
      Join Lawsuit.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UR6hyP at no extra charge.[CC]

VERIZON DATA: Kendall Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANNE MARIE KENDALL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. VERIZON DATA SERVICES LLC, VERIZON
CORPORATE SERVICES GROUP INC., and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. C22-01304, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on September 19,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-05324 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest
breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages timely
during employment, failure to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment, and unfair business practices.

Verizon Data Services LLC is a provider of information technology
services, with its principal place of business in Florida.

Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc. is a provider of
communication products and services, with its principal place of
business in New Jersey. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Steven M. Zadravecz, Esq.
         Aileen H. Kim, Esq.
         Lauren E. Dutkiewicz, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
         Irvine, CA 92612.4408
         Telephone: (949) 851-3939
         Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
         E-mail: szadravecz@jonesday.com
                 aileenkim@jonesday.com
                 ldutkiewicz@jonesday.com

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Audi Transmission Settlement Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that an Audi
transmission settlement has been granted final approval after an
owner claimed the direct-shift gearbox transmissions have
problems.

Those problems are allegedly in 2010-2012 Audi S4 and Audi S5
vehicles that shake, jerk and suffer from shifting problems.

According to the class action lawsuit, the Audi transmission
problems cause juddering and shuddering when accelerating,
decelerating, and when shifting into second through fourth gears.

In addition, the Audi transmission problems cause the vehicle to
enter limp mode which makes the vehicle impossible to accelerate.
This allegedly requires the complete replacement of the
transmission.

The plaintiff also alleges Audi knew or should have known about the
transmission problems before the vehicles were even sold.

The judge allowed the plaintiffs to amend the transmission lawsuit
four times before Audi agreed to settle the case.

Audi Transmission Problems: Settlement Granted Final Approval
Owners of 2010-2012 Audi S4 and Audi S5 vehicles will need to read
the following from the court to determine if the transmission
settlement will offer any benefits.

Audi agreed to reimburse customers for one repair of a diagnosed
problem of shuddering, juddering, rough shifting or improperly
entering "limp mode" of the transmission.

The transmission settlement says a repair means the replacement of
either the transmission or mechatronics unit.

However, to qualify for reimbursement, the repair must have been
performed prior to the Audi transmission class action settlement
notice date and within nine years or 90,000 miles from when the
vehicle first went into service.

Additionally, reimbursement is on a sliding scale based on the
mileage and age of the 2010-2012 Audi vehicles. In addition to the
customer paying for part of the repairs, the customer must show
documents proving the vehicle was maintained based on the
maintenance schedule.

Then there is what the lawsuit claims is an "added benefit" of the
Audi transmission settlement which includes a 9-year/90,000-mile
"extended warranty." But those limitations are based on the age and
mileage of the 2010-2012 Audi vehicles.

Although the judge granted final approval to the settlement, he
said the "vast majority of class members will not receive any
payment under this settlement."

As for the extended warranty, the judge said no owners apparently
even qualify for the "settlement benefit."

"Although the settlement also results in an 'Extended Warranty' for
9 years or 90,000 miles, Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged at the
final fairness hearing that he is not aware of anyone who still
qualifies given the age and mileage limits. Plaintiff notes that
reimbursement for past Covered Repairs is the 'primary benefit' of
the Settlement." - Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

The Audi owner who sued will receive $5,000, and the attorneys who
represent the plaintiff will receive $992,533.80 in fees and
$25,908.65 for expenses.

The Audi transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California: John Chess, v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc.

The plaintiff is represented by Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, and
Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman. [GN]

VOLUME SERVICES: Jeffries Seeks Final OK of Proposed Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned a DORIS JEFFRIES, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated, v. VOLUME SERVICES
AMERICA, INC. (d/b/a Centerplate and Centerplate/NBSE): and DOES 1
THROUGH 10, Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, Case No. 1:17-cv-01788-CKK
(D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
final approval of the proposed settlement.

The proposed class action Settlement is well within the range of
reasonable settlements. It is non-collusive, and it was achieved as
the result of informed, extensive, and arm's-length negotiations
conducted by experienced counsel, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff further moves the Court for an Order:

   1. Confirming its previous findings that the requirements for
      class certification, for settlement purposes, are
      satisfied;

   2. Certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes;

   3. Appointing Plaintiff Doris Jeffries as the Class
      Representative for the Settlement;

   4. Appointing attorneys Chant Yedalian of Chant & Company A
      Professional Law Class; Corporation and Brian K.
      Herrington of Chhabra Gibbs & Herrington PLLC as Class
      Counsel for the Settlement Class;

   5. Appointing Atticus Administration, LLC as the Settlement
      Administrator to administer the Settlement;

   6. Finding that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and
      reasonable and complies with Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23;

   7. Finding that the notice of Settlement directed to the
      Settlement Class members has been completed in conformity
      with the Court’s orders;

   8. Binding all Settlement Class members who did not timely
      exclude themselves from the Settlement; and

   9. Directing the Parties and the Settlement Administrator to
      effectuate all terms of the Agreement.

Volume Services provides commercial services. The Company offers
food, beverage, merchandise, facility design, and management
services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xVj0GR at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian K. Herrington, Esq.
          CHHABRA GIBBS & HERRINGTON PLLC
          120 North Congress Street, Suite 200
          Jackson, MS 39021
          Telephone: (601) 326-0820
          E-mail: bherrington@nationalclasslawyers.com

               - and -

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY
          709 Alexander Ln
          Rockwall, TX 75087
          Telephone: (877) 574-7100
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com

WALMART INC: Class Action Firm Wants to Keep All Attorney Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that lawyers who
want half of more than $470,000 in fees and costs given out in a
class action settlement failed to submit their billing records,
says the firm fighting to keep it all.

The Law Office of Ronald A. Marron on Sept. 19 filed its motion to
dismiss a lawsuit brought by Canova Law Office over fees from a
class action against Walmart, Lang Pharma Nutrition, CVS, Walgreen
and Meijer Distribution involving a dietary supplement called
Co!-10.

The suit said the supplements weren't as effective as advertised.
The settlement created a fund for consumers worth more than $1.3
million and generated $435,289.80 in fees and nearly $40,000 in
costs.

The Canova firm's lawsuit said it performed substantial work on the
case and had a 2017 agreement with Marron to take half of the fees
from the case.

"The agreement provides that 'The parties jointly shall explore,
develop, and prosecute (in their joint discretion) the Jackson
litigation,'" Marron's motion to dismiss says.

"Canova does not attach the agreement to the complaint and misleads
the court by alleging that a purported 'Engagement Letter' is the
operative contract."

Canova never prosecuted the case or appeared as counsel, Marron
says, and also never submitted time records for the court's
consideration of the attorneys fees award.

"(B)y failing to appear as counsel in the Jackson litigation,
Canova never disclosed the terms of the fee split agreement to the
Jackson court," the motion says.

The motion seeks in the alternative a transfer to San Diego federal
court. The settlement of the class action at issue was reached in
state court there. [GN]

WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Subscription Service
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action says that the amount Walmart Plus subscribers are told
they will save on delivery and shipping fees comes with a crucial
caveat that's essentially hidden in fine print on the mega
retailer's website.

The 21-page lawsuit says that although Walmart Plus subscribers are
told they can, for instance, "Save $800+ with free delivery" and
"$500+ on shipping fees," these benefits are "potentially illusory"
because the purported savings, as Walmart discloses in the fine
print, are compared against two deliveries per week at a non-member
$7.95 fee and two Walmart.com orders under $35 per week at a
non-member $6.99 shipping fee.

According to the complaint, Walmart's records show that the average
customer does not place orders for two deliveries per week, or make
two orders from Walmart.com for less than $35 per week.

More broadly, the suit alleges Walmart has "scientifically"
designed the Walmart Plus subscription process to cut down on
customer "churn," or cancellations. This includes increasing the
wait time for consumers who call to speak to a customer service
representative, and using "negative option" tactics online as speed
bumps for those looking to cancel their enrollment, the case
claims.

Additionally, Walmart's promotion of "[f]ree delivery from your
store" and "$0 delivery fees" comes with fine print that reveals
there is a $35 order minimum, subject to additional fees for
express delivery, the filing says. Another limitation for Walmart
Plus that consumers may be unaware of is that the retailer's "free
shipping" does not apply to "most Marketplace items," the suit
says.

Overall, the lawsuit alleges Walmart has sold more Walmart Plus
subscriptions, and at higher prices, than it would have had it not
falsely and misleadingly advertised the benefits of the service.

"The value of the Subscription that Plaintiff subscribed to was
materially less than its value as represented by Defendant," the
complaint claims.

Per the case, the links on Walmart.com where a potential customer
can begin a free 30-day Walmart Plus trial allow them to sign up
for the trial without informing them of the delivery and shipping
limitations. The check-out page where potential customers can
select either an annual or monthly Walmart Plus plan also does not
mention the limitations on the promised free shipping and delivery,
according to the suit.

Further, some customers have reported being charged a monthly or
annual fee immediately upon signing up for a Walmart Plus free
trial, the lawsuit says. The filing relays that if a customer uses
Walmart Plus during the free trial period and forgets to cancel
before a particular date, they will be enrolled in the service via
an automatically renewing subscription.

"Even when the trial does not result in an immediate charge,
tethering a trial to enrollment in an auto-renewing subscription is
deceptive and not 'free' because the customer cannot merely use the
service during this period, and must remember to cancel before the
end date, imposing a burden on their time and attention."

The lawsuit alleges that in light of the foregoing, Walmart "takes
advantage of consumer inertia" since autorenewal users are "seven
times more likely" to continue using, or not cancel, a service,
compared to those who enroll in an automatically canceling
subscription.

Walmart also fails to provide pro-rated refunds to consumers
depending on when they cancel their "free" trial, relative to where
they're at in the subscription term, the complaint alleges.

Consumers who attempt to cancel their subscriptions through their
Walmart account are "overwhelmed by the numerous selections and
settings," and are not told plainly how to cancel, the suit
contends.

According to the lawsuit, Walmart fails to separately notify
customers prior to the end of their subscription term that if they
do nothing, that is, fail to affirmatively cancel it, they will be
charged again for the subscription.

"Defendant places barriers in front of members seeking to cancel in
the form of screens asking whether they are sure they want to
cancel and/or attempting to make them feel guilty for canceling,"
the suit claims.

The case lastly alleges some Walmart Plus customers who've canceled
their subscriptions continued to be charged due to "known internal
errors" in Walmart's billing system.

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in Michigan, Iowa, Kansas,
Montana, Alaska, Arkansas, Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, South
Carolina, South Dakota and Utah who subscribed to Walmart Plus
within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]

WALMART INC: Lee Sues Over Misleading Subscription Services
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Walmart Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-12258-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., Sept. 23, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act and various state consumer fraud acts, for breaches
of express warranty implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for
a particular purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, Walmart markets and sells a
subscription service known as Walmart+. Walmart Plus represents
Defendant's entry into the "subscription economy," or the exchange
of content, products and services for recurring, scheduled
payments. The Defendant allegedly entices customers to sign up by
promoting Walmart Plus as a way to "Save time and money with free
delivery* and free shipping** - Terms apply - Try free for 30
days." However, some customers, including Plaintiff, have reported
being charged an immediate monthly or annual fee upon signing up in
the free trial, says the suit.

The Defendant sold more of the subscription and at higher prices
than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in
additional profits at the expense of consumers. As a result of the
false and misleading representations, the subscription is sold at a
premium price, approximately no less than $12.95 a month or $98.00
per year, excluding tax and sales, and higher than it would be sold
for absent the misleading representations and omissions, the suit
asserts.

Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WALTER KIDDE: Court Trims Fire Extinguisher Class Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Anne Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the
maker of an allegedly defective fire extinguisher sold at stores
like Walmart escaped most of a proposed class action after a
federal trial court dismissed all but three of 19 claims.

The two named plaintiffs didn't properly plead the "who, what,
where, when, and how" for multiple claims based on Walter Kidde
Portable Equipment Inc.'s alleged fraudulent concealment or
misrepresentations about the effectiveness of the portable fire
extinguishers, the US District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina said. They only stated that they relied on
interviews and marketing materials, the court said. [GN]

WARNER BROS: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 22 Lead Plaintiff Naming Due
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 27
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
investors who: (a) exchanged Discovery, Inc. ("Discovery") common
stock (NASDAQ: DISCA, DISCB, DISCK) for Warner Bros. Discovery,
Inc. ("Warner Bros.") common stock (NASDAQ: WBD) pursuant to
Discovery's February 4, 2022 Registration Statement on Form S-4 and
Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") on February 10, 2022; and/or (b)
purchased shares of Warner Bros. common stock on the open market
traceable to the Prospectus through the date of the filing of the
complaint on September 23, 2022. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 22,
2022.

SO WHAT: If you exchanged Discovery common stock for Warner Bros.
common stock pursuant to Discovery's February 4, 2022 Registration
Statement on Form S-4 and Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2022
and/or purchased shares of Warner Bros. common stock on the open
market traceable to the Prospectus through September 23, 2022 you
may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Warner Bros. Discovery class action,
go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8888 or call
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than November 22, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, at the time of
filing the Registration Statement and Prospectus, defendants either
knew or had access to adverse information concerning operations of
the WarnerMedia business of AT&T. Among other things, as
subsequently disclosed by defendants after the merger: (1)
WarnerMedia's HBO Max streaming business had a high churn rate that
made the business not "viable" unless the churn rate was reversed;
(2) AT&T was overinvesting in WarnerMedia entertainment content for
streaming, without sufficient concern for return on investments;
(3) WarnerMedia had a business model to grow the number of
subscribers to its streaming service without regard to cost or
profitability; (4) WarnerMedia was improvidently concentrating its
investments in streaming and ignoring its other business lines; and
(5) WarnerMedia had overstated the number of subscribers to HBO Max
by as many as 10 million subscribers, by including as subscribers
AT&T customers who had received bundled access to HBO Max, but had
not signed onto the service. The adverse information was not
disclosed to Discovery shareholders in the Registration Statement
or Prospectus or otherwise prior to the effective date of the
merger. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Warner Bros. Discovery class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8888 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

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

WELLS FARGO: Echard Class Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as  BRIAN ECHARD, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Case No. 2:21-cv-05080-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting preliminary approval of
the Parties' proposed Settlement.

The Plaintiff contends that the proposed Settlement, if approved,
would constitute a major victory for the proposed settlement class.
It would create a non-reversionary, $94 million Settlement Fund to
provide meaningful compensation to all members of the Class. Upon
the Settlement’s effective date, the first $35 million will be
paid out as Automatic Payments to all Class Members who do not opt
out of the Settlement, split equally among the approximately
212,000-213,000 loans whose borrowers are members of the Class. The
remaining Net Settlement Amount, will form a Claims Fund to
compensate Class Members for any actual damages they incurred due
to being placed in Forbearance without informed consent.

In January 2021, the Plaintiff Echard filed this proposed
nationwide class action on behalf of customers of Wells Fargo whose
mortgages were placed into Wells Fargo's Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security (CARES) Act Forbearance program without
adequate informed consent. Plaintiffs Stephen and Heather Shimp are
joining Mr. Echard.

Wells Fargo operates as a bank. The Bank offers online and mobile
banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, and investment.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan A. Hunter, Esq.
          HUNTER & HUNTER LLC
          1491 Polaris Pkwy No. 21416
          Columbus, OH 43240
          Telephone: (234) 738-4648
          E-mail: nathan@hunterfirm.org

               - and -

          Knoll Lowney, Esq.
          Marc Zemel, Esq.
          SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC
          2317 E. John Street
          Seattle, WA 98112
          Telephone: (206) 860-2883
          E-mail: knoll@smithandlowney.com
                  marc@smithandlowney.com

WERNER ENTERPRISES: Midgett Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER MIDGETT,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. WERNER
ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 8:18-cv-00238 (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. Certifying a Rule 23 class, composed of:

      "all current and former Werner drivers who were classified
      as independent contractors and transported Defendant's
      truckload shipments using trucks they owned or leased and
      had at least one week where they earned less than
      minimum wage after deductions within four (4) years of the
      commencement of this action through May 2019;"

   2. Approving his proposed notice form;

   3. Approving notice to be sent to all putative class members;

   4. Requiring Werner to provide Plaintiffs with the names and
      addresses of the class to facilitate notice to potential
      plaintiffs of this pending lawsuit, along with their dates
      of employment, employee identification numbers, telephone
      numbers, and email addresses;

   5. Allowing a 60-0ay period for those persons receiving
      notice to exclude themselves from the case.

Werner is an American transportation and logistics company, serving
the United States, Mexico and Canada. Werner Enterprises stated
that it had 2021 revenues of $2.7 billion and over 13,500 employees
and contractors.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 16,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RhOZHQ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945-7110
          Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

          Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
          MCINNES LAW LLC
          3500 West 75th Street, Suite 200
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 220-2488
          Facsimile: (913) 273-1671
          E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com

               - and -

          Steven H. Howard, Esq.
          DOWD HOWARD & CORRIGAN, LLC
          1411 Harney Street, Suite 100
          Omaha, NE 68102
          E-mail: steve@dowd-law.com

XPO LAST: Green, Tejada Win Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON GREEN and WALDO
TEJADA, v. XPO LAST MILE, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-01896-JAM (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer entered an order:

   1. granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification:

      "All individuals who personally or on behalf of their
      business entity, signed a Delivery Service Agreement with
      XPO and who personally performed deliveries for XPO full-
      time in Connecticut between November 2017 and the
      present;"

      The plaintiffs define "full-time" as "personally making
      deliveries at least 80 percent of the days XPO assigns
      routes to the contractor," and restrict the class to
      contractors "who generally did so for at least 12
      consecutive weeks, and who averaged at least four days a
      week of work for XPO."

   2. appointing the named plaintiffs Leon Green and Waldo
      Tejada as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. as class counsel.

Judge Alker concluded that Green and Tejada have standing in light
of the nature of the underlying right they assert to payment of
wages as employees under Connecticut law. They have a concrete
injury -- loss of money -- that is fairly traceable to XPO and that
could be redressed by a grant of relief in the form of money
damages.

The defendants oppose the class certification motion on the ground
that Green and Tejada lack standing. They otherwise argue that the
plaintiffs cannot meet each of the requirements for class
certification.

The Plaintiffs Leon Green and Waldo Tejada are delivery drivers who
transport items like furniture and appliances from retail stores
and warehouses to customers' homes. They filed this lawsuit against
XPO, a third-party logistics company that specializes in
merchandise deliveries.

Green and Tejada claim that XPO has misclassified them as
independent contractors rather than as employees and that XPO has
violated Connecticut's employee wage laws by making deductions from
their pay for expenses such as insurance and claims for damages to
merchandise they have delivered.

XPO is a national logistics company that serves as a kind of
delivery middleman for "big box" merchandise companies like Lowe's
and Home Depot. As a third-party logistics provider and freight
forwarder, it contracts with big box stores for the delivery of
goods, then in turn enters into delivery service agreements with
motor carriers to ship the goods to the customers who have ordered
them.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dWgDMX at no extra charge.[CC]


ZAZZLE INC: Adams Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled COURTNEY ADAMS, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZAZZLE INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2022 CA 1998 OC, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Sept. 9,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 6:22-cv-01645-RBD-DAB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that Zazzle "has placed telephonic sales
calls to telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers in
Florida without their prior express written consent," in violation
of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

Zazzle Inc. is an American online marketplace that allows designers
and customers to create their own products with independent
manufacturers, as well as use images from participating
companies.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan H. Kaskel, Esq.
          Bety Javidzad, Esq.
          Mark A. Silver, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          1 Alhambra Plaza, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 537-0009
          Facsimile: (305) 670-4846
          E-mail: jonathan.kaskel@dentons.com
                  nancy.salazar@dentons.com

ZILLOW GROUP: Intercepts Web Communications, Conlisk Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK CONLISK and MICHAEL DEKHTYAR, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-05082 (N.D. Ill., September 19, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy and
violations of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of
intercepting the private electronic communications of visitors to
its website, www.zillow.com, without their consent. After
intercepting and recording the website communications, Zillow and
the session replay providers use those website communications to
recreate users' entire visit to the website. As a result, the
Plaintiffs and Class members have sustained damages, says the
suit.

Zillow Group, Inc. is an American tech real-estate marketplace
company, headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

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

                 - and -

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

[*] Western Australia Set to Introduce New Class Action Regime
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Atfield, Esq., Alex Corsaro, Esq., and Annie Achie, Esq.,
and Clayton Utz, in an article for Lexology, report that following
the lead of other Australian states, a class action regime will
soon be introduced in the Western Australian Supreme Court, which
will have some key differences to those in other Australian
jurisdictions.

With the enactment of the Civil Procedure (Representative
Proceedings) Bill 2021 on 1 September 2022, Western Australia will
soon have a new class actions regime. The Bill will not commence
immediately so that the WA Supreme Court has the opportunity to
develop supporting practice directions and rules to ensure that
class action proceedings are conducted fairly and efficiently.

The road to the new class actions regime

Class action reform has been under consideration in Western
Australia for at least the last decade. In July 2011, the then
Attorney General of Western Australia asked the Law Reform
Commission of Western Australia to consider whether the principles,
practices and procedures pertaining to representative proceedings
being commenced in the courts of Western Australia required
reform.

Until now, representative proceedings in Western Australia have
been able to be conducted via Order 18 of the Rules of the Supreme
Court 1971 (WA), but this regime is much less comprehensive than
the Federal class action regime or those in New South Wales,
Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania.

In June 2015, after an extensive consultation process, the
Commission published its Final Report, "Representative
Proceedings", which recommended a class actions regime in the WA
Supreme Court modelled on the Federal class actions regime found in
Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The
Commission determined that Order 18 was inadequate to facilitate
large-scale class actions in Western Australian courts. Its
recommendations reflected a concern to ensure that the Western
Australian court system was meeting community expectations for
access to justice.

The Western Australian Government first acted upon this
recommendation in 2019 when it introduced a bill containing a class
actions regime to the Western Australian Parliament. In proposing
that Parliament effectively adopt legislation modelled on the
Federal class actions regime, the Western Australian Government
embraced comments from the Federal Court's Justice Bernard Murphy
that the federal regime had "proved flexible and adaptable" and
that it "provides real, practical and broad-based access to
justice". The bill passed the Legislative Assembly in September
2019 but remained with the Legislative Council until it was
eventually prorogued by Parliament in December 2020. The Civil
Procedure (Representative Proceedings) Bill 2021 is substantially
similar.

How is the Western Australian regime different to those in other
Australian jurisdictions?

While the Bill is modelled on the Federal regime, it differs in
several key respects.

First, the Bill expressly permits representative plaintiffs
bringing a class action against multiple defendants, irrespective
of whether each named representative plaintiff has a claim against
every defendant. The Federal regime does not have an equivalent
provision and this has, historically, given rise to some
uncertainty. The provision is intended to provide legislative
clarity in respect of this issue.

Second, the Bill grants the Court specific powers, that do not
appear in the Federal regime, to substitute the representative
plaintiff in a class action with another group member where it is
in the interests of justice to do so. The provision is intended to
provide the Court with additional flexibility in circumstances
where the lead plaintiff is not adequately representing the
interests of group members who he or she represents.

Finally, the Bill also contains a review clause to facilitate
assessment of the operation and effectiveness of the regime in five
years' time. That review must be undertaken by the Attorney
General, with a report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament
not later than 12 months after the five year anniversary of the
legislation coming into force.

Greenlighting litigation funding

Maintenance and champerty make it unlawful to financially support
litigation which the funder does not have a direct interest in or
is party to (including in order to receive a cut of the proceeds
obtained from the litigation). Following another Final Report from
the Commission, the Bill also abolishes the torts of maintenance
and champerty in Western Australia.

This move effectively gives the green light for litigation funders
to finance Western Australian proceedings and brings Western
Australia in line with most other Australian States and
Territories. The Western Australian Government cited this, and "the
fact that litigation funding is now a modern reality and has the
potential to improve access to justice when the costs to initiate
an action are prohibitive" in support of the move.

Interestingly, Western Australia has not followed Victoria's lead
in removing the prohibition on lawyers charging a contingency fee
in class actions. A contingency fee is a method of billing for
legal services through a percentage amount recovered in the
litigation, and historically Australian lawyers have been
prohibited from charging them. Victoria's reforms allow a lead
plaintiff to apply to the Court seeking that the legal costs be in
the form of a contingency fee. It remains to be seen whether the WA
Parliament would seek to introduce similar reform in the future, or
as part of the five-year review of the new regime.

What class action risk will look like in Western Australia

After the WA Supreme Court has developed supporting practice
directions and rules to ensure that proceedings are conducted
fairly and efficiently, class actions will be available in the
Court. We expect the class actions initiated in the WA Supreme
Court, as opposed to in another jurisdiction, will have a strong
nexus to Western Australia. These types of class actions would
include, for example, mass tort or negligence actions relating to
natural disasters or environmental events in Western Australia.

We hold this view for several reasons. First, when a plaintiff law
firm or funder is considering where to commence their next class
action that affects people across Australia, we think it is likely
that they would be commenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria
(given the contingency fee provisions which are favourable to
plaintiff law firms), or the Federal Court of Australia (as the
first Court to have a class actions regime, since 1992). Secondly,
given the absence of a modern class action regime in Western
Australia until now, there are a limited number of firms in Western
Australia with class action experience, so any class action
opportunities are more likely to be identified by Eastern State
firms. [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 ***