/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221011.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, October 11, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 197

                            Headlines

ACELRX PHARMA: Court Allows Sneed to Amend Securities Complaint
ADVANCED SERVICES: Faces Bouie Suit Over CSRs' Unpaid OT Wages
AMAZON.COM INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Unfair Contracts
AMERICAN GENERAL:  Moriarty Class Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice
APPLE INC: $20-M Deal in iPhone 4S Class Suit Gets Court Final OK

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Shearman & Sterling Reviews Securities Suit Ruling
ATLAS AIR: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set on December 2
AUDUBON FIELD: Fails to Pay Inspectors' OT, Cencarik Suit Claims
AUSTRALIA: NDIS Class Action Could Be Most Expensive on Record
AVAMERE HEALTH: Kinne Files Suit in D. Oregon

AVIS BUDGET: Agrees to Settle Liability Insurance Suit for $34M
AVIS RENT A CAR: Parkin Files Suit in D. New Jersey
BANK OF AMERICA: Nelson Sues Over Failure to Provide Notice
BKK FOREST HILLS: Suastegui Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
BLACK TIE MOVING: Kinnard Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

BP CORP: Workers Defeat Bid to Expand Pension Conversion Suit
BP EXPLORATION: Cook's Expert Testimony Excluded in Brister Suit
BP EXPLORATION: Court Excludes Cook's Expert Testimony in Hill Suit
BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Bengson Suit
BPS FINANCIAL: Lead Applicants to Pay Security Costs in Qoin Suit

CANADA: Wants Black Service Employees' Class Action Tossed
CARVANA CO: Pretrial Conference in Car Buyers' Suit Set Nov. 23
CENTESSA PHARMA: Sued Over Decline in Securities Market Value
CHARLES SCHWAB: Sued for Using Callers' Biometric Voice Prints
CLINIVATE LLC: Gutierrez-Torres Files Suit in C.D. California

CONSUMER COLLECTION: Blake Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
CVS HEALTH: Been Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
DEBICS LLC: Taylor Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Credit Card Tip
DOWN IN THE VALLEY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ESPN INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Sharing

EUROCRAFT CONTRACTING: Rojas Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
F21 OPCO LLC: Rodgers Files Suit in S.D. New York
FEALS INC: Raslavich Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
FEDEX GROUND: 450 Opt-Ins in Claiborne Suit Dismissed W/ Prejudice
FEDEX GROUND: Court Narrows State Law Claims in Claiborne Suit

FINDLAY'S TALL: Freeland Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
FLIPPS MEDIA: Solomon Files Suit in E.D. New York
FREESTYLE SOLUTIONS: Warren Files Suit in D. New Jersey
FSSI INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FULTON GARDENS POST: Jackson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

FURMAN UNIVERSITY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GAMETABLES4LESS LLC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GARRISON PROPERTY: Lemke Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
GC SERVICES: Roger Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
GENERAL MOTORS: Hit With $102.6MM Jury Verdict in Class Action

GENERAL MOTORS: Oklahoma Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Hampton Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Sued for Unlawfully Retaining Subscribers' Information
HOLLYWOOD MEGA: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOLY SEE: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Blecher's Amended Complaint
HOLYOKE, MA: Attorney Reacts to Dismissal of COVID-19 Outbreak Suit

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Over 3,600 People to Join Defective Vehicles' Suit
INTEGRITY MARKETING: Nichols Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
JACKSON, MS: Police Dept. Agrees to Limit Roadblocks After Lawsuit
JOHN MUIR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unlawful Billing Practices
KALITTA AIR: Odell Sues Over Unlawful COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

KARAVITES MANAGEMENT: Dodd Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
KENDALL COUNTY: Kniffin Sues Over Paramedics' Unpaid OT Wages
KEYBANK NATIONAL: Urciuoli Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII
KIRKLAND'S INC: Miles Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
KPS GLOBAL: Carrillo Suit Removed to C.D. California

KROGER CO: Judge Narrows Class Action Suit Over Cheese Claims
LANE BRYANT: Cole Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
LINCARE HOLDINGS: Miller Files Suit in M.D. Florida
LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Kontas Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
LOEWE LLC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

LOWE'S HOME: Judge Applies "Viking River" Case to Dismiss PAGA Suit
LUIGI'S PIZZERIA: Salazar Sues Over Entitled Compensations
MANITOBA: First Nations Group Files Suit Over Child Welfare System
MARS INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Titanium Dioxide in Skittles
MATCH GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Use of Face Scans

MEN'S WEARHOUSE: George Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Young Sues Over Defective Vehicle Batteries
MERCK & CO: Shingles Patients Oppose Dismissal of Vaccine Suit
MID-ATLANTIC BUILDERS: Attorneys' Fees in Nesbitt Suit Affirmed
MILLION NAILS: Pita Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages

MODERNIST HOTEL: Chavez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NELNET SERVICING: Bird Files Suit in D. Nebraska
NELNET SERVICING: Gamen Files Suit in D. Nebraska
NELNET SERVICING: Miller Files Suit in D. Nebraska
NELNET SERVICING: Simmons Files Suit in D. Nebraska

NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Powder Drink Mix
NETSPEND CORPORATION: Amis Files Suit in C.D. California
NEWELL-BERG ALLIANCE: Coffelt Files Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NEWREZ LLC: Sanak FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
NICE-PAK PRODUCTS: Walters Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York

NONNI'S FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Real Lemon Claims
NORDIC SHOPS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NORTH STATES INDUSTRIES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Dec. 6
ORANGE BUSINESS: Hannaby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

ORTHOPAEDIC AND NEUROLOGICAL: Fermin-Hayes Sues Over Unpaid Wages
PACIFIER LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAPA JOHN'S: Faces Lawsuit for Alleged Misuse of Tracking Scripts
PARADIGM INDUSTRIES: Jessica Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Salazar Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Data

PATINA INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 5
PEPSICO INC: Class Action Agent Files Breach of Contract Suit
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Court Dismisses Suit Over Denied Coverage
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Mackensen Files Suit in D. Kansas

PUPY GROCERY: Santana Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
QUALCOMM INC: NRF Tapped to Defend Business in Which? Class Action
REGALO INTERNATIONAL: Toro Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
RINA ACCOUNTANTS: Cresse Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ROAD RUNNER: Arbitration Denial as to O'Connor in Costa Suit Upheld

RONIN GALLERY: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ROSE MILLE INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RUGER & CO: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Suit Claims
RUSH SYSTEM: Sued for Disclosing Patient Data to Third Parties
SALLY BEAUTY: Raslavich Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Call

SIMM ASSOCIATES: Fogarty Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
SINGTEL OPTUS: Data Breach Class Action Biggest Case in Australia
SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Hicke Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
SPHINX RANCH: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUTTER HEALTH: District Council Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct.

TMC GENERAL CONSTRUCTION: Montes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRACY ANDERSON MIND: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRAVELING TIKES: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TSUNAMI INC: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, OT Wage
TYSON FOODS: No Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Securities Class Suit

UNITED STATES: Discrimination Lawsuit Granted Class Certification
UNITED STATES: Provost Umphrey Named Class Counsel in Labor Suit
UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: Certification Denied in Discrimination Suit
VANGUARD EQUITIES: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
VICTORIA GOLD: $925,000 Settlement in Shareholders' Suit Reached

VISA INC: Faces Suit in Competition Tribunal Over Unlawful Charges
WEALTHSIMPLE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Fees
WEST VIRGINIA: Co Commissions React to Southern Regional Jail Suit
[*] 1st Annual Complex Litigation Ethics Conference - Register Now
[*] Surge of Wiretapping Class Action Suits in Calif. Discussed


                            *********

ACELRX PHARMA: Court Allows Sneed to Amend Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON SNEED JR., Plaintiff v. ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04353-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the putative securities class action
with leave to amend.

On June 8, 2021, Sneed filed a securities class action suit in the
Court alleging violations of various securities laws by AcelRx, its
CEO Vincent J. Angotti, and AcelRx Chief Financial Officer Raffi
Asadorian. The Court appointed Aaron Sneed Jr. and Yaacov Musry as
co-lead plaintiffs and Pomerantz LLP as the Lead Counsel.

On March 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
FAC adds one additional Defendant, AcelRx Chief Health Officer
Pamela Palmer. They assert four counts under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") on behalf of a class
including all individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired
AcelRx securities (ticker symbol ACRX) between March 20, 2019 and
Feb. 12, 2021.

AcelRx is a pharmaceutical company that develops therapies for the
treatment of acute pain. DSUVIA, the product at the center of this
suit, is an opioid painkiller that is administered sublingually,
and therefore particularly useful in circumstances where patients
cannot swallow oral medication and access to intravenous pain
relief is not possible. In November 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") approved AcelRx's application for DSUVIA. In
so doing, the FDA also approved the DSUVIA Risk Evaluation and
Mitigation Strategy ("REMS"), which is "a drug safety program that
the FDA can require for certain medications with serious safety
concerns to help ensure the benefits of the medication outweigh its
risks. As an FDA-approved drug, DSUVIA is subject to the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), which prohibits the
introduction into interstate commerce of any drug that is
"misbranded."

On Feb. 11, 2021, AcelRx received a warning letter from the FDA
indicating that two of AcelRx's promotional materials -- a banner
advertisement and a tabletop display -- made "false or misleading
claims and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA"
and therefore violated the FDCA. After AcelRx publicly disclosed
this letter on Feb. 16, 2021, the stock price fell $0.21 per share,
or 8.37%.

The Plaintiffs allege that the "Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies." They point to the Warning
Letter in claiming that the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements or failed to disclose information indicating that "(1)
AcelRx failed to implement and/or maintain sufficient disclosure
controls and procedures regarding the marketing of DSUVIA; (2) as a
result, the Company engaged in the Misbranding Violations; and (3)
the Company was therefore subject to increased risk of regulatory
investigations or enforcement actions." They also assert that the
Defendants engaged in a scheme to market DSUVIA beyond its
permitted label. Finally, they claim that the individual Defendants
engaged in insider trading by selling shares of the stock after
receiving the Warning Letter but before disclosing it to the
public.

Ordinarily, a district court's inquiry on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss is limited to the pleadings. "A court may, however,
consider certain materials without converting the motion to dismiss
into a motion for summary judgment."

The Defendants request that the Court takes judicial notice of:
Exhibit 1, AcelRx Press Release, issued on November 2, 2018;
Exhibit 2, DSUVIA REMS, approved by FDA on November 2, 2018;
Exhibit 3, DSUVIA Prescribing Information, approved by FDA on
November 2, 2018; Exhibit 4, DSUVIA Directions for Use; Exhibit 5,
AcelRx Press Release, issued on January 7, 2019; Exhibit 6, AcelRx
Press Release, issued on January 31, 2019; Exhibit 7, Excerpts of
AcelRx Form 10-K (FY 2018), filed with SEC on March 7, 2019;
Exhibit 8, Transcript of AcelRx presentation at the 29th Annual
Oppenheimer Health Care Conference, webcast live on March 20, 2019;
Exhibit 9, AcelRx Press Release, issued on April 11, 2019; Exhibit
10, Excerpts of AcelRx Form 10-Q (Q1 2019), filed with SEC on May
9, 2019; Exhibit 11, Transcript of AcelRx Q2 2019 earnings call,
held on Aug. 5, 2019; Exhibit 12, Excerpts of AcelRx Form 10-Q (Q2
2019), filed with SEC on Aug. 6, 2019; Exhibit 13, Transcript of
AcelRx Q3 2019 earnings call, held on Nov. 6, 2019; Exhibit 14,
Excerpts of AcelRx Form 10-Q (Q3 2019), filed with SEC on Nov. 7,
2019; Exhibit 15, Transcript of AcelRx Q4 2019 earnings call, held
on March 16, 2020; Exhibit 16, Excerpts of AcelRx Form 10-K (FY
2019), filed with SEC on March 16, 2020; Exhibit 17, Transcript of
AcelRx Q1 2020 earnings call, held on May 11, 2020; Exhibit 18,
Excerpts of AcelRx Form 10-Q (Q1 2020), filed with SEC on May 11,
2020; Exhibit 19, Excerpts of AcelRx Form 10-Q (Q2 2020), filed
with SEC on Aug. 10, 2020; Exhibit 20, Excerpts of AcelRx Form 10-Q
(Q3 2020), filed with SEC on Nov. 5, 2020; Exhibit 21, AcelRx Form
8-K, filed with SEC on Feb. 16, 2021; Exhibit 22, Analyst report
published Feb. 16, 2021; Exhibit 23, Analyst report published Feb.
17, 2021; Exhibit 24, Form 4 filings for Defendant Angotti, filed
with SEC on Feb. 13, 2019, June 5, 2019, Nov. 12, 2019, Feb. 7,
2020, June 15, 2020, and Feb. 12, 2021; Exhibit 25, Form 4 filings
for Defendant Asadorian, filed with SEC on Feb. 13, 2019, Feb. 7,
2020, and Feb. 12, 2021; Exhibit 26, Form 4 filings for Defendant
Palmer, filed with SEC on Feb. 13, 2019, Feb. 7, 2020, and Feb. 12,
2021; Exhibit 27, FDA webpage on Prescription Drug Advertising:
Questions and Answers.

The Plaintiffs responded to the motion. They do not take a position
on the Defendants' request to incorporate by reference and/or
judicially notice documents relied upon in the complaint (Exhs.
1-3, 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18-22, and 24-26), with the caveat that the
Court should not accept the truth of any statements within them.
With regard to the exhibits not referenced in the complaint (Exhs.
4-7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 23, 27), they believe the incorporation by
reference doctrine does not apply, and they further assert that if
the Court takes judicial notice of the documents, it should not
assume the truth of any statements within them that dispute facts
in the complaint.

Judge Freeman finds that Exhibits 1-3, 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18-22, and
24-26 are incorporated by reference into the FAC. The remaining
documents include an SEC filing, AcelRx Form 10-K (FY 2018) (Exh.
7); pages from the AcelRx and FDA websites (Exhs. 4, 27); press
releases (Exhs. 5-6, 9); transcripts of earnings calls (Exhs. 11,
13, 17); and an analyst report (Exh. 23), all of which are proper
subjects of judicial notice. These exhibits are all publicly
available, and their accuracy is not disputed by the Plaintiffs.
Judge Freeman thus takes judicial notice of the existence of these
exhibits. She does not take notice of the truth of any of the facts
asserted in these documents.

The Defendants' request for judicial notice is granted.

The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to meet
the pleading requirements for all claims. The Court indicated at
the hearing that it would grant the motion to dismiss with leave to
amend. This order is intended to highlight the areas of primary
concern to the Court.

As to Claim 1 (Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b)), Judge Freeman
holds that the FAC fails to plead a material misrepresentation or
omission. The Plaintiffs assert that several of AcelRx's statements
were false or misleading because they were misbranding DSUVIA. They
point to various categories of statements, including (1) statements
about DSUVIA's use and administration; (2) statements about launch
efforts and future plans; (3) statements about risks; (4)
statements about the REMS; and (5) SEC filing certification.

According to Judge Freeman, many of the misstatements identified in
the FAC are not related to the misbranding violations, meaning the
reasons Plaintiffs provide as to why those statements are false or
misleading bear no connection to the substance of the statements.
While the misbranding violations are serious, the FAC does not
allege a sufficient nexus between the misbranding of DSUVIA and the
identified statements to investors. The fact that the FDA
ultimately determined that two of AcelRx's DSUVIA advertisements
were in violation of the FDCA does not show that the statements
identified by the Plaintiffs in the FAC were false at the time they
were made.

To aid in the Plaintiffs' amendment process, Judge Freeman further
determines that the FAC fails to plead scienter. The FAC contains
few allegations addressing scienter. In their opposition to the
motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs assert that scienter can be
inferred when holistically considering the following: (1) insider
selling, (2) access to information, (3) core operations, (4) SOX
attestations, (5) a desire to sell at inflated prices.

Judge Freeman finds that these bases do not give rise to a strong
inference of scienter. First, the Plaintiffs assert that the
individual Defendants sold thousands of shares of stock the day
they received the FDA Warning Letter, then waited five days to
disclose the letter. But they do not allege facts showing that the
sales at issue were "dramatically out of line with prior trading
practices at times calculated to maximize the personal benefit from
undisclosed inside information."

Second, the Plaintiffs assert that because Defendants were working
with the FDA on the DSUVIA application, including the REMS, they
were aware of the applicable regulatory requirements, and therefore
should have known they were in violation of those requirements. But
the Defendants' awareness of FDA regulations and their
participation in developing the REMS do not strongly imply that
they knew any specific statement was false at the time it was made.
The Plaintiffs also rely on the statements of three former
employees ("FEs") in asserting that the advertising and marketing
of DSUVIA were "deliberately reckless." But these allegations lack
the specificity required to show that the Defendants had
contemporaneous knowledge that any particular statement was
untrue.

Third, the Plaintiffs assert the core operations theory, under
which "scienter may be imputed based on the inference that key
officers have knowledge of the core operations of the company." But
they have failed to plead particular allegations that any
individual Defendant had access to any disputed information, or
that there is any relevant fact that would have been absurd for
AcelRx management not to know.

The Plaintiffs also argue that the totality of the allegations are
sufficient to support scienter. But given the weaknesses discussed,
the allegations collectively do not give rise to a strong inference
of scienter. Judge Freeman grants the motion to dismiss the Rule
10b-5(b) claim with leave to amend.

As to Claim 2 (Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c)), the
Defendants assert that this claim must fail because it is a mere
"repackaging" of the Rule 10b-5(b) claim. But their "argument that
Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) claims cannot overlap with Rule 10b-5(b)
statement liability claims is foreclosed by Lorenzo v. SEC, 139
S.Ct. 1094, 1101-02 (2019), which rejected the petitioner's
argument that Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) 'concern "scheme liability
claims" and are violated only when conduct other than misstatements
is involved.' The Supreme Court in Lorenzo clarified that there is
"considerable overlap" between the different subsections of Rule
10b-5, and it held that "dissemination of false or misleading
statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of
subsections (a) and (c) of Rule 10b-5."

Judge Freeman finds that the Plaintiffs do not adequately allege a
violation of subsections (a) and (c), under either the Lorenzo
dissemination theory or a more traditional scheme liability theory.
First, under Lorenzo, they would need to show the dissemination of
false or misleading statements with intent to defraud. The
Plaintiffs do not adequately allege any false or misleading
statements, nor do they adequately allege scienter. They therefore
cannot proceed under this theory. The Plaintiffs can also establish
a violation of subsections (a) and (c) by adequately alleging
scheme liability, which they seem to be pursuing. But the FAC does
not adequately plead scheme liability under subsections (a) and
(c).

The FAC does not allege with any particularity that the Defendants
engaged in a scheme to overstate the potential market size for
DSUVIA. Nor have the Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to show
that the individual Defendants engaged in a scheme of insider
trading. At the hearing, the Plaintiffs indicated they could
provide additional factual support for the Rule 10b-5(a) and (c)
claim. Judge Freeman grants the motion to dismiss the Rule 10b-5(a)
and (c) claim with leave to amend.

As to Claim 3 (Section 20(a)), to prevail on their claim, the
Plaintiffs must first allege a violation of Section 10(b). They
have failed to do so. Accordingly, Judge Freeman grants the motion
to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim against Defendants Angotti,
Asadorian, and Palmer with leave to amend.

Finally, as to Claim 4 (Section 20A), to prevail on their claim,
the Plaintiffs must first allege a violation of Section 10(b).
Again, they have failed to do so. Judge Freeman grants the motion
to dismiss the Section 20(A) claim against Defendants Angotti,
Asadorian, and Palmer with leave to amend.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Freeman grants the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs will file a second
amended complaint ("SAC"), if they are able to rectify the defects
discussed, no later than 60 days from the date of the Order. No
parties or claims may be added without leave of Court. The
Plaintiffs will provide a chart with the SAC including a numbered
list of the false and misleading statements, and for each
statement: (1) a citation to the pleading; (2) the identity of the
speaker; (3) the date of the statement; (4) the location of the
statement; (5) evidence the statement was false when made; and (6)
evidence of scienter with respect to that statement. They will
provide a redline of the SAC against the FAC.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bd3zmhun from Leagle.com.


ADVANCED SERVICES: Faces Bouie Suit Over CSRs' Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANITA F. BOUIE, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02672-JTF-atc (W.D. Tenn., September
30, 2022) is a collective and class action complaint brought
against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed
to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated customer service
employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
customer service representative.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated customer service representatives performed work for the
Defendant more than 40 hours per week when adding all their unpaid
"off the clock" and "edited-out" wages. However, the Defendant
denied them of their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation,
for himself and for all other similarly situated customer service
representatives (CSRs), as well as liquidated damages equal in
amount to the unpaid compensation, all contractually agreed-upon
wages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses, and
disbursements relating to the filing of this complaint together
with reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other relief
as the Court deems just and proper.

Advanced Services, Inc. provides customer service. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
            OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Unfair Contracts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy De Marco, writing for Law Street, reports that Amazon filed a
motion to dismiss a class action brought against the against it
that alleged their contractual agreements with suppliers are
anticompetitive and protect Amazon from competition with retail
suppliers.

Amazon claims that, by setting Margin Agreements with its wholesale
providers, it's encouraging market competition and acting in favor
of antitrust laws. Amazon states that these lowered prices benefit
customers, such as the plaintiffs.

The e-commerce giant also alleges that the plaintiffs lack
antitrust standing because they have not suffered an antitrust
injury. Amazon expands on this reasoning, arguing that the market
conduct, in question by the plaintiffs, occurs outside any market
the plaintiffs participate in as consumers.

According to Amazon, "[the] Plaintiffs' theory of market-wide
anticompetitive effects rests on allegations regarding the combined
effects of individual Margin Agreements; this theory fails because
the Complaint does not allege an agreement or conspiracy among and
between the Amazon suppliers along with Amazon."

Amazon is represented by Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, as well as their in-house counsel.
[GN]

AMERICAN GENERAL:  Moriarty Class Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE L. MORIARTY, as
Successor-In-Interest to Heron D. Moriarty, Decedent, on Behalf of
the Estate of Heron D. Moriarty, and on Behalf of the Class, v.
AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-01709-BTM-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge barry T.
Moskowitz entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for class
certification without prejudice.

The Court said, "Certifying Plaintiff's proposed class would be
inconsistent with Rule 23. The Plaintiff cannot represent a class
comprised primarily of policy holders seeking equitable relief
because she has no equitable claim to pursue. She is seeking
damages, but most class members would not be. In any case, the
proposed class raises too many individual questions because it is
too broad. The Plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 23. Class
certification is not a superior mechanism for the fair, efficient
resolution of this controversy. The Court could theoretically
modify the Plaintiff's proposed class definition to include only
those policy holders or beneficiaries who have damage claims. The
Court declines to do so without briefing on the question. The Court
has substantial concerns as to whether the issues of the individual
claims such as actual damages and causation would predominate. The
Court recognizes that Plaintiff sees the issue as a simple one of
failure to comply with the Statutes results in the policy not
lapsing and upon death, the benefit is payable. The Court
respectfully disagrees, and since this issue is fairly debatable,
it may ultimately have to be resolved on appeal."

Counsel shall appear at a status conference on October 12, 2022 at
4 PM to set a trial date in January 2023, the Court adds.

American General operates as an insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fD1eSo at no extra charge.[CC]

APPLE INC: $20-M Deal in iPhone 4S Class Suit Gets Court Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco at lawstreetmedia.com reports that by order
earlier, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom gave final approval to a
settlement in a class action brought by iPhone 4S owners against
Apple concerning a software update that, though intended to enhance
phone security, rendered the devices nearly or totally inoperable.

The suit dates to 2015 when aggrieved phone users claimed the
installation of iOS 9 greatly diminished the operation and value of
their devices. In 2017, the court allowed the case to proceed under
the theory that consumers experienced injury after they were
induced to download the software update that Apple knew would
hamstring their device. The suit was brought under New York and New
Jersey consumer protection statutes on behalf of similarly situated
phone owners in those states.

The parties reached a settlement in May 2022 after class
certification and the exchange of expert briefs. The unopposed
motion for settlement noted that discovery included over 48,000
Apple-produced documents, more than 15 depositions, expert reports
totaling over 770 pages, and several motions to compel.

Under the terms of the $20 million settlement, iPhone 4S owners
were entitled to payment of $15 per device. In their briefing for
final approval, the plaintiffs said that of the class of 1.5
million, 16% had filed claims. The plaintiffs requested one-third
of the settlement amount in attorneys' fees in addition to their
costs.

Apple objected to that figure, requesting that they receive 30% not
33.33%. "Apple agrees that the plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to
an attorneys' fee award as a result, their fees come out of the $20
million Settlement Fund, and, as such, should be fair but not
excessive, and not adversely affect the recovery of the Settlement
Class," its motion said.

In this week's opinion however, the court overrode Apple's
objections and granted class counsel's requested fees in addition
to named plaintiff service awards of $45,000.

Class counsel is Pomerantz LLP and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman
LLP. Apple is represented by DLA Piper US LLP. [GN]

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Shearman & Sterling Reviews Securities Suit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
September 12, 2022, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with
prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company
and certain of its executives. In re AstraZeneca plc Sec. Litig.,
2022 WL 4133258 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that
the company made misstatements and omissions with respect to
clinical trials of its COVID-19 vaccine. The Court held that
plaintiffs failed to identify any misleading statements and failed
to adequately allege scienter.

As a general matter, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to meet
the heightened pleading standard under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") to "'demonstrate with specificity
why and how' each statement is materially false or misleading." Id.
at *6. Rather, the Court observed that plaintiffs presented in
"boilerplate fashion" various statements from the class period and
then, "after each one, repeat[ed] a copy-and-pasted list of
omissions" as to allegedly adverse information regarding the
clinical trials. Id. This, the Court explained, was insufficient
because it did not "specify what understanding each statement left
investors, and how that understanding was inconsistent with alleged
omissions." Id.

With respect to plaintiffs' allegations that information was
omitted regarding the dosages used in the trials, the Court
determined that plaintiffs failed to identify "any inaccurate,
misleading, or incomplete statement" relating to vaccine dosage,
but rather "identified only accurate statements describing the
launch and historical progression of the … clinical trials." Id.
at *7. The Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that any statements
"created the misleading impression" that there were "no significant
setbacks or unusual issues;" rather, the Court explained that there
is "no generalized duty to 'disclose negative facts.'" Id.
Moreover, while plaintiffs argued that the company had a duty to
"tell the whole truth" after it chose to speak on the issue of the
clinical trials, the Court concluded that the challenged statements
were "at such a high level of generality, and the alleged omitted
facts so granular, that there is no violation of that principle
here." Id.

Further, the Court rejected plaintiffs' allegations with respect to
the alleged omission that the number of trial participants over the
age of 55 was purportedly insufficient. Id. at *8. The Court
determined that no challenged statement was rendered misleading by
this alleged omission. For instance, while plaintiffs pointed to a
statement that the clinical trials would measure immune responses
"in different age ranges," the Court noted that there was no
dispute that the trials indeed did so. Id. The Court also rejected
plaintiffs' argument that defendants "created the misleading
impression that the number of 55+ subjects was sufficient to be
studied," which the Court noted amounted to "little more than a
dispute about the proper interpretation of data," which was
insufficient to establish an actionable misrepresentation. Id.

In addition, the Court held that various general statements were
non-actionable puffery, including statements that the company was
"moving quickly but without cutting corners," that the clinical
trial was "on track," and that the company would "follow the
science" and "put patients first." Id. at *8-9. The Court
determined that no reasonable investor would rely on such general
statements.

The Court also determined that plaintiffs' allegation that the
company failed to disclose that the vaccine was unlikely to receive
regulatory approval in the near term was not actionable under the
safe-harbor provision of the PSLRA for forward-looking statements
accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. Id. at *9. The Court
emphasized that statements regarding regulatory approval are
"classically forward-looking," and the challenged statements were
all accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. Id.

The Court further concluded that plaintiffs failed to adequately
allege scienter. The Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that
scienter should be inferred on a theory of "motive and
opportunity." Id. The Court explained that plaintiffs failed to
establish the required "concrete and personal benefit" from the
alleged misrepresentations, as the only motives identified—such
as increasing the stock price to facilitate the acquisition of
another company—were insufficient and were "common to most
corporate officers." Id.

The Court also rejected plaintiffs' argument for scienter based on
a theory of "strong circumstantial evidence of conscious
misbehavior or recklessness," which the Court explained required
behavior that was "highly unreasonable" and "an extreme departure
from the standards of ordinary care." Id. While plaintiffs argued
that defendants had access to "contrary facts" conflicting with the
challenged statements, the Court determined that plaintiffs failed
to specifically identify the information any defendant had access
to. Id. Moreover, the Court noted that the alleged omitted facts
were, in fact, disclosed to the FDA, and that there was "room for
disagreement" as to whether this information undermined the trial
results, further undermining any inference of fraudulent intent.
Id. at *10.

Finally, the Court declined to grant leave to amend, concluding
that further amendment would be futile, given that plaintiffs had
previously amended their complaint and failed to explain how
further amendment would remedy the deficiencies identified by the
Court. Id.

In re AstraZeneca plc Sec. Litig. [GN]

ATLAS AIR: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set on December 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
Khan v. Atlas Air, Inc.

If you were employed by Atlas Air, Inc. as a non-exempt employee in
California at any time between October 21, 2016 and May 31, 2022, a
class action settlement may affect your rights.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. The Los
Angeles County Superior Court has authorized this notice in the
matters of Khan v. Atlas Air, Inc., Case No. 20STCV40478 (the
"Litigation").

This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

Ghufran Khan ("Plaintiff") was a non-exempt ground employee
employed by Atlas Air, Inc. ("Defendant") in California. Plaintiff
filed a lawsuit against Defendant on October 21, 2020.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to: pay minimum wages for
all hours worked, pay all overtime wages due; pay for work
performed off-the-clock; provide meal periods; authorize and permit
rest breaks; provide accurate wage statements; reimburse all
reasonable business expenses; ensure all deductions were proper and
prevent improper deductions; maintain full and complete records
regarding employment as required by California law; and, timely pay
all wages after separation from employment. Plaintiffs, also claim
that Defendants are liable for civil penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

Defendant disputes Plaintiff's claims. Defendant expressly and
specifically denies violating any laws and contends it acted
properly and lawfully at all relevant times.

For settlement purposes only, the Court has conditionally certified
the Litigation to be a class action on behalf of all non-exempt
ground employees employed by Defendant in California from October
21, 2016 to May 31, 2022 (the "Class Period").

Your legal rights may be affected by this Settlement whether you
act or do not act. Your options are explained in this notice. Thus,
please read this notice carefully and in its entirety. To request
to be excluded from, or object to, this Settlement, you must act
before October 19, 2022.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS LAWSUIT:
(1) DO NOTHING (1) Receive part of the Settlement.
If you do not do anything upon receipt of this notice, you will
receive a sum of money based on your dates of employment with
Defendant; you will give up your right to sue for alleged
violations and related claims released by the Settlement;
you will have no right to appeal; and you will forfeit your right
to bring or participate in a similar action against Defendant.
(2) OPT-OUT (2) Opt-out or exclude yourself from the Settlement.
Get no benefits from it. If you make a valid and timely written
request to be excluded from the Settlement, you will not receive
any money, and you will not give up any rights you may have.
(3) OBJECT (3) Write to the Court about why you object to the
Settlement. If you object to the Settlement, you can write to the
Court about why you don't agree with the Settlement. The Court may
or may not agree with your objection. If the Court approves the
Settlement, you will still be bound by its terms.

You are receiving this notice because the Los Angeles County
Superior Court has granted preliminary approval to a class action
settlement for settlement purposes only, and Defendants' records
indicate that you may be a member of the settlement Class. As such,
you may be eligible for compensation from this Settlement.

As a Class Member, your interests are being represented at no
expense to you by Justin Lo of Work Lawyers, P.C. ("Class
Counsel"). You may also hire your own lawyer at your own expense.

I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
On October 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a representative action in Los
Angeles County Superior Court ("the Court") on behalf of all
current and former non-exempt hourly employees employed by
Defendant in California (referred to as "Class Members"). On May 5,
2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") adding
class claims. The FAC made claims for: (1) violation of Labor Code
Secs. 226.7 and 512 (meal period violations); (2) violation of
Labor Code Sec. 226.7 (rest break violations); (3) violation of
Labor Code Secs. 204, 510, 1194 (failure to pay all wages,
including off-the-clock, minimum wages, and overtime wages); (4)
violation of Labor Code Secs. 201-203 (failure to pay wages
due at separation of employment); (5) violation of Labor Code Secs.
226(a), (e); (6) violation of Labor Code Sec. 2802 (failure to
reimburse business expenses and improper deductions); (7) violation
of Business & Professions Code Secs. 17200, et seq. (unfair
business practices).

The Parties thoroughly investigated the case. Plaintiff and
Defendant were then able to agree on a Settlement of the case with
the assistance of a professional mediator. Class Counsel believe
the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of
the Class. Defendant expressly and specifically denies any
liability or wrongdoing of any
kind associated with the claims alleged in the Litigation.
Defendant settled the Litigation in order to avoid costly,
disruptive, and time-consuming litigation.

On August 11, 2022, the Court gave preliminary approval to the
Settlement and conditionally certified the settlement Class for
settlement purposes only. The Court was not asked to make and did
not make any ruling as to whether any violations by Defendant had
occurred.

II. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
A. What Are the Terms of the Settlement?
Defendant have agreed to pay $170,000.00 to settle the Litigation
("Gross Settlement Amount"). The Gross Settlement Amount includes
attorneys' fees and costs, costs of settlement administration, PAGA
penalties, and the Class Representative Service Payments.

The "Net Settlement Fund" is the remainder of the Gross Settlement
Amount after the deductions have been made for the following items:
(1) up to $56,666.66 (33 1/3% of the Gross Settlement Amount) for
Class Counsel's attorneys' fees; (2) Class Counsel's actual
litigation costs up to $15,000; (3) the costs of settlement
administration of $4,500;

(4) $20,000 for PAGA penalties; and (5) up to $3,000 to Plaintiff
for serving as a Class Representatives.

B. Who is Included in the Settlement?
Included in the Settlement are all non-exempt, or equivalent
positions however titled, ground employees employed by Defendant in
California between October 21, 2016, and May 31, 2022.
C. How Are Settlement Payments Calculated?
There are approximately 38 Class Members. Any Class Member who does
not submit a written request to be excluded from the Settlement
will have his or her "Settlement Payment" calculated as follows:
a. All Participating Class Members: The Net Settlement Fund
totaling at least $75,833.34 will be divided among all
Participating Class Members. Each Participating Class Member will
receive a proportionate share of the Net Settlement that is equal
to (i) the number of workweeks he or she worked during the time
period from October 21, 2016 through May 31, 2022, divided by (ii)
the total number of workweeks worked by all Participating Class
Members during the time period from October 21, 2016 through May
31, 2022.
b. PAGA Subclass: The Settlement designates a total of $20,000.00
as penalties under the PAGA. From this amount, $5000.00 (25%) will
be allocated to the PAGA Subclass, which includes all Class Members
who were employed at any time during the time period from October
21, 2019, through May 31, 2022 ("PAGA Period"). The remainder of
the PAGA penalties will be paid to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency, as required by law. Each member of
the PAGA Subclass will receive a proportionate share of money
allocated to that Subclass that is equal to (i) the number of
workweeks he or she worked during the time period from October 21,
2019, through May 31, 2022, divided by (ii) the total number of
workweeks worked by all Participating Class Members who are
members of the PAGA Subclass during the time period from October
21, 2019 through May 31, 2022.
c. Tax Treatment of Settlement Payments: twenty percent (20%) of
each Settlement Payment will be designated as wages, for which you
will receive a W-2 form. The remaining eighty percent (80%) of each
Settlement Payment will be allocated to penalties and interest for
which you will receive a 1099 form.
D. Your Settlement Calculation.
Your Settlement Payment is estimated to be based on the following
dates of employment as reflected in Defendants' records. If you
wish to object to the proposed settlement, you must send your
objection to the attention of the Settlement Administrator Phoenix
Settlement Administrators, P.O. Box 7208, Orange, CA 92863, in
writing by October 19, 2022. In your written objection, please
provide what you believe to be the correct information along with
supporting documentation, if available, to show the changes you are
seeking. All written objections and supporting papers must: (1)
state the objecting Class Member's name and address; (2) state the
case name and number as follows Khan v. Atlas Air, Inc., Case No.
20STCV40478; (3) state each objection to the Settlement; (4)
include a written explanation detailing the specific basis or
reason, if any, for each objection, including any legal and factual
support the objector wishes to bring to the Court's attention and
any evidence the objector wishes to introduce in support of
the objection(s); and (5) be signed and dated.

Your check will be void if you do not cash or deposit your check
within 180 days following the issuance of the check. Whether or not
you cash or deposit your check, you will be bound by the Settlement
and will be deemed to have waived irrevocably any right or claim to
your Settlement share and/or to appeal the approval of the
Settlement. After the expiration of 180 days, the sum of any
uncashed/undeposited checks shall be delivered to the State of
California, Department of Labor Standards and Enforcement's unpaid
or unclaimed wage fund.

E. Release of Claims Against Defendant.
Upon the Final Approval of the Settlement by the Court, Plaintiff
and all members of the Settlement Class who do not submit timely
requests for exclusion (described below) will be deemed to have
fully released and discharged Defendant from all claims that were
asserted in the Complaint or First Amended Complaint, or that could
have been plead based upon the facts, conduct, and/or omissions
alleged in the Litigation, from October 21, 2016 to May 31, 2022.
The released claims thus include claims for unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages, unpaid off-the-clock work, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods,
inaccurate wage statements, failure
to maintain employment records, waiting time penalties, failure to
reimburse business expenses, improper deductions, statutory
interest on any of the foregoing, and unfair competition. Only
those Class Members who were employed during the PAGA Period will
release their claims for PAGA penalties.

These claims are referred to in this Notice as the "Released
Claims." For more information regarding the scope of the release,
please read the Settlement Agreement available at
http://www.phoenixclassaction.com/class-actionlawsuits/judgments/.

III. LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS OF CLASS MEMBERS
A. Option 1: Do Nothing and Receive a Settlement Payment.
You do not need to do anything in order to receive a Settlement
Payment. If you do nothing, you will automatically be included in
the Settlement and will receive a Settlement Payment so long as the
Settlement is approved and becomes Final. As set forth above, your
Settlement Payment will be based upon whether or not you worked
during the Class Period and, if so, the amount of workweeks you
worked during the Class Period.

Please keep your address current! To assist the Court and the
parties in maintaining accurate lists of Class Members, please mail
notice of any change in your address to the Settlement
Administrator (address below), or call (800) 523-5773. Please say
that you are a part of the Atlas Air, Inc. Settlement Class.

B. Option 2: Exclude Yourself from the Settlement.
IMPORTANT: You will be bound by the terms of the Settlement unless
you submit a timely and signed written request to be excluded from
the Settlement. To exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must
mail your request for exclusion, postmarked no later than October
19, 2022, to:

Phoenix Settlement Administrators
P.O. Box 7208
Orange, CA 92863
Telephone: (800) 523-5773
Facsimile: (949) 209-2503
Email: notice@phoenixclassaction.com

Your request for exclusion must contain your full name and a
statement that you wish to be excluded. Your request for exclusion
must be returned by mail to the Settlement Administrator at the
address above and must be postmarked on or before October 19,
2022.

C. Option 3: Object to the Settlement.
Any Settlement Class member who has not submitted a request for
exclusion may object to the terms of the Settlement.

You may object to the proposed settlement in writing. All written
objections, supporting papers, and/or notices of intent to appear
at the Final Approval Hearing should: (1) clearly identify the case
name and number (Khan v. Atlas Air, Inc. Case No. 20STCV40478); and
(2) be mailed to the Settlement Administrator postmarked on or
before October 19, 2022. If the Settlement Class member timely
submits a written objection, he or she, may appear personally or
through an attorney, at his or her own expense, at the Final
Approval hearing to present his or her objection directly to the
Court, provided the Settlement Class member notifies the Court,
Class Counsel, and Defense Counsel as identified below. Any
attorney who will represent an individual objecting to this
Resolution must file a notice of appearance with the Court, and
serve Class Counsel and Defense Counsel no later than sixty (60)
days after the Notice of Proposed Class Action Resolution was
initially mailed to the Settlement Class members.

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
CLASS COUNSEL
Justin Lo (SBN 280102)
WORK LAWYERS, PC
22939 Hawthorne Blvd., #202
Torrance, CA 90505
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
REBECCA ARAGON
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 West Fifth Street
63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

DAVID S. MAOZ, Bar No. 233857
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107

IV. FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING
The Court will hold a hearing on December 2, 2022, at 8:30 a.m., in
Department 57, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, to
determine whether the Settlement should be finally approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate. The hearing may be continued or
rescheduled without further notice to Class Members. You can check
whether the Final Approval Hearing has been continued or
rescheduled by visiting the Court's website (see instructions
below). You may attend the Final Approval Hearing but are not
required to do so. Written objections will be considered at the
Final Approval Hearing whether or not the person objecting appears
at the hearing. If you object and wish to appear at the Final
Approval Hearing, you may appear personally or through counsel
hired at your own expense, as long as you provide the Court with
timely notice of your intent to appear.

At no expense to you, Class Counsel will represent your interests
as a Class Member. Or, you may hire your own lawyer at your own
expense. [GN]

AUDUBON FIELD: Fails to Pay Inspectors' OT, Cencarik Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN CENCARIK, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AUDUBON FIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-03566-CJB-JVM (E.D. La., September 30, 2022) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its
alleged illegal pay practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a coating inspector
and a quality inspector since January 2021.

The Plaintiff asserts that regardless of the number of hours that
he and other similarly situated CSRs worked per day, the Defendant
compensated them a flat daily rate for all hours worked each day.
Despite normally working 10 to 12 or more hours a day, the
Defendant allegedly failed to pay them overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated inspectors,
the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated
damages equal in amount to their unpaid compensation, attorneys'
fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief
as may be necessary and appropriate.

Audubon Field Solutions, LLC provides inspection services and data
collection to the energy industry, including pipelines and gas
plants among others. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Tel: (225) 925-5297
          Fax: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com

AUSTRALIA: NDIS Class Action Could Be Most Expensive on Record
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Read, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
older Australians are challenging their exclusion from the National
Disability Insurance Scheme in a class action against the federal
government that could be the most expensive on record.

Taxpayers could be out of pocket hundreds of millions of dollars if
the case is successful, potentially eclipsing the cost of the
federal government's Robodebt settlement.

About 330 over-65s have already signed up to the class action in
the fortnight since it launched and a "beauty parade" of litigation
funders are lining up to finance the case, Mitry Lawyers partner
Rick Mitry told The Australian Financial Review.

NDIS Minister Bill Shorten has said including the over 65s in the
scheme would be "very expensive." Alex Ellinghausen

Mr Mitry said roughly 100 over-65s per week were signing up to the
class action.

"We are getting people from all over Australia," Mr Mitry said. "At
this stage, it could end up being in the thousands the way it's
going."

Eligibility rules for the NDIS require a person to be younger than
65 on the day they make their application. A person who is already
on the scheme can keep receiving support after they turn 65.

The suit alleges the age limit is inconsistent with the convention
on the rights of persons with disabilities, while the staggered
rollout of the NDIS is also alleged to have breached constitutional
provisions against state-based discrimination.

There is also a secondary claim for "misleading and deceptive
conduct" because of the federal government's alleged failure to
inform people with a disability about the NDIS.

Lost payments
Mitry Lawyers estimates the average annual loss for people who
cannot access the NDIS is in the tens of thousands of dollars. The
average NDIS participant gets $111,000 per year while the
means-tested aged care scheme is limited to $56,000.

Claimants are also seeking backpay for the years of lost payments
since the NDIS was launched by the Gillard government in 2013.

Mr Mitry said more than 5000 people could join the class action and
the case could cost the federal government more than the Robodebt
settlement, which required the Commonwealth to pay $112 million to
victims, refund welfare recipients $752 million and abandon the
pursuit of another $1 billion in false debt claims.

Over-65s are not included in the NDIS because the program was
designed to assist people whose disability was not acquired due to
age. The program was also not envisaged as a welfare program, but a
targeted scheme to lift the capability and potential workforce
opportunities for working-age people with a disability.

Asked about the class actio, Disability Minister Bill Shorten said
the cost of including over-65s on the scheme would be "very
expensive" but he did not provide a figure.

"There are people in the community who say that the quality of
disability care after the age of 65 is inferior to the quality of
disability care before 65," Mr Shorten said.

"Whether or not the solution is an NDIS, which would be very
expensive, or an improvement in the quality of disability care in
aged care, that'll be a matter for the whole of the government to
talk through."

The potential inclusion of over-65s in the scheme would put
additional pressure on the NDIS' already-stretched budget, with
official forecasts showing its annual cost poised to double to $60
billion by 2030.

The forecasts reflect strong growth in the number of people using
the scheme and the average payments made to participants, which
outstrip projections made by the Productivity Commission.

As of March 2022, there were 518,668 NDIS participants, with the
National Disability Insurance Agency's annual financial
sustainability report projecting this number to increase to 670,000
by June 2025 and almost 860,000 by June 2030. [GN]

AVAMERE HEALTH: Kinne Files Suit in D. Oregon
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avamere Health
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Lynda Kinne, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avamere Health
Services, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01400-YY (D. Ore., Sept. 15,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated Other Personal Property Damage.

Avamere Health Services -- https://www.avamere.com/ -- is a home
health care service in Wilsonville, Oregon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bonner Charles Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          1561 Long Haul Road
          Grangeville, ID 83530
          Phone: (541) 359-2827
          Fax: (866) 503-8206
          Email: bonner@walshpllc.com


AVIS BUDGET: Agrees to Settle Liability Insurance Suit for $34M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avid Budget Car Rental agreed to pay $34 million to resolve claims
it failed on its promise to purchase liability insurance as part of
its rental contracts.

The class action settlement will benefit consumers who rented
either an Avis or Budget vehicle while in Florida between June 12,
2008, and Jan. 1, 2016, and who had rental receipts with notations
of "ALI .00/Day Accepted" or "SLI .00/Day Accepted."

Eligible class members will receive a cash reimbursement based on
the days they rented their vehicle.

To join the class action settlement, they must submit a valid claim
form by Jan. 20, 2023. [GN]


AVIS RENT A CAR: Parkin Files Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avis Rent A Car
System LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jane Parkin, David Hughes,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avis
Rent A Car System LLC, Budget Rent A Car System Inc., Avis Budget
Group Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05481-CPO-AMD (D.N.J., Sept. 9,
2022).

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

Avis Car Rental -- https://www.avis.com/en/home -- is an American
car rental company headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700
          Fax: (973) 994-1744
          Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Nelson Sues Over Failure to Provide Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gary Nelson, Kayleigh Potter, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 220902864 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Sept. 28, 2022), is
brought against an auto lender to redress systemic violations of
Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"), that requires
secured parties who utilize self-help repossession to provide
consumers with proper notice when repossessing and reselling a
financed vehicle.

The Defendant, Bank of America, National Association ("Bank"),
regularly finances the purchase of automobiles for consumer use in
Pennsylvania. When the Bank believes that a consumer has defaulted
on a secured vehicle finance agreement, it repossesses and then
makes preparations to auction the vehicle. In the course of so
doing, the Bank failed to provide the Plaintiffs and the class with
the proper notice of repossession and disposition of collateral
required by Pennsylvania Law, including Pennsylvania's Uniform
Commercial Code ("UCC").

Because self-help repossession is effected without judicial
authorization or oversight, the UCC requires secured creditors like
the Bank to adhere strictly to the Code's notice requirements.
Failure to provide proper notice of repossession of consumer goods
is a violation of the Code that yields statutory minimum damages
without evidence of harm for the Plaintiffs and the class they seek
to represent, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased their respective vehicles pursuant to a
Retail Installment Sale Contract.

Bank of America, National Association, as a sales finance company,
finances the purchase of automobiles in Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
          Jody Thomas Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Phone: (610) 822-0782


BKK FOREST HILLS: Suastegui Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Suastegui and Jose Luis Angel Basurto, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. BKK FOREST HILLS INC. (D/B/A
BANGKOK CUISINE), THAI72 INC. (D/B/A THAI 72), HOPHAPCITY INC.
(D/B/A BANGKOK CUISINE), SUJITRA RUNGRUANGSURIYA, PUSIT
SIRIPRAKAISAK, and SOMSAK SIRIPRAKAISAK, Case No. 1:22-cv-08275
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2022), is brought for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
and for violations of the New York Labor Law and the "spread of
hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor codified, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs 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 they worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs 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
Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
they had to work over 10 hours a day. Defendants' conduct extended
beyond the Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees.
The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs were employed as cooks at the restaurants.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located
in Forest Hills, New York, under the name "Bangkok Cuisine", and in
New York City under the name "Thai 72", and "Bangkok Cuisine."[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


BLACK TIE MOVING: Kinnard Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Kinnard, individually, and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees as a collective
class v. BLACK TIE MOVING, MEMPHIS, LP, BLACK TIE MOVING,
NASHVILLE, LLC, BLACK TIE MOVING, LITTLE ROCK L.L.C., BLACK TIE
MOVING, DENVER, LLC, ELITE ENTERPRISES LLC, BLACK TIE MOVING
DELAWARE LLC, BLACK TIE MOVING ARIZONA LLC, BLACK TIE MOVING –
BOSTON, LLC, BLACK TIE MOVING OF SW FL LLC, BLACK TIE MOVING
ORLANDO, LLC, BLACK TIE MOVING, CINCINNATI, LLC, BLACK TIE MOVING,
CLEVELAND, LLC, BLACK TIE MOVING, COLUMBUS, LLC, BLACK TIE MOVING
SERVICES LLC, BLACK TIE MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, BLACK TIE MOVING, SAN
ANTONIO, LLC, BLACK TIE MOVING, AUSTIN, LLC, and BLACK TIE MOVING
SERIES, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00719 (M.D.
Tenn., Sept. 15, 2022), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed
to Plaintiff and others employed by the Defendants as nonexempt
hourly-paid movers and drivers.

The Plaintiff routinely worked 40 hours or more each week for the
Defendants, including the unpaid "off the clock" compensable time.
The Plaintiff was not exempt from the payment of overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week at the
applicable FLSA overtime rates of pay. Therefore, the Plaintiff is
entitled to receive compensation from the Defendants for all such
unpaid "off the clock" time at the applicable FLSA overtime rates
of pay. The Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff for all their
compensable overtime hours of work was willful with reckless
disregard to the clearly established overtime requirements of the
FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendants as a mover and
driver.

The Defendants own and operate a moving, delivery and storage
company that uses the trade name and does business as "Black Tie
Moving."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 759-1745
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com


BP CORP: Workers Defeat Bid to Expand Pension Conversion Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
bloomberglaw.com reports that BP Corp. NA and a group of workers
who say they lost pension benefits when the company acquired
Standard Oil of Ohio banded together to successfully keep more than
200 other workers from intervening in the class action, according
to a Fifth Circuit ruling issued.

The would-be intervenors are a group of 277 legacy Standard Oil
employees led by Michael Press who filed a separate case. They lack
the legal right to intervene in an earlier-filed lawsuit making
similar claims about how the acquisition affected pension benefits,
the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said. [GN]


BP EXPLORATION: Cook's Expert Testimony Excluded in Brister Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COURTNEY BRISTER v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.,
ET AL. SECTION D (5), Civil Action No. 17-4652 (E.D. la.), Judge
Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana issued an order granting the following motions filed
by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America
Production Co., BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.:

   a. the Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of
      Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and

   b. the Motion for Summary Judgment.

The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf
Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who
presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However,
certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted
out of or were excluded from the MSA. Brister opted out of the MSA
and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed this individual action against the Defendants
on May 3, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the oil spill. For approximately four months in 2010, he
worked as a beach cleanup worker, tasked with cleaning up oil and
oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal areas in Gulfport,
Biloxi, Pass Christian, Long Beach, and Pascagoula, Mississippi.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and
recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently
failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused
him to suffer myriad injuries including coughing, nausea,
headaches, rashes, breathing difficulties, joint pain, and chest
pains. Specifically, he seeks to recover economic damages, personal
injury damages -- including damages for past and future medical
expenses and for pain and suffering—punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

To help support his claims that exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused his particular health
symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr.
Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise
specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His
Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather,
his generic causation report has been utilized by numerous B3
plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court as
well as in other cases before other sections of this court.
Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation
and not to specific causation.

The Defendant filed the instant Motions on June 27, 2022. In their
Daubert Motion in Limine, they contend that Dr. Cook's report
should be excluded as it is both unreliable and unhelpful to the
trier of fact. They primarily point to the opinions of other
sections of the Court which have excluded this very same Report on
grounds of unreliability to suggest that it should likewise exclude
the Report. Further, they contend that Dr. Cook's specific
methodology is unreliable and that he failed to establish the
harmful level of exposure to the association, and (9) Consistency
with other knowledge." Next, because Dr. Cook should be excluded to
testify, the Defendants argue, the Court should grant their Motion
for Summary Judgment as the Plaintiff is unable to establish
general causation through expert testimony, a necessary requirement
under controlling Circuit precedent.

The Plaintiff disputes the Defendants' characterization of Dr.
Cook's Report. He argues that Dr. Cook utilized a proper
methodology in conducting his general causation analysis and that
he thoroughly explained his methods. Further, he argues that the
Report does provide adequate harmful exposure level data for each
health condition he exhibited and that to the extent that Dr. Cook
is unable to provide more specific exposure-level data, it is the
fault of the Defendants for improperly restricting access to
scientific research teams to gather such data. Finally, the
Plaintiff contends that expert testimony is not necessary for a
transient symptom case. Further, in his opposition to the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff points to
orders from other sections of the Court which concluded that expert
testimony may not be required to establish symptoms within the
common knowledge of lay people.

Judge Vitter concurs with the other sections of the Court that have
addressed this issue and found Dr. Cook's failure to address the
level of harmful dosage of each relevant chemical to be ultimately
fatal to his report. At no point in his report does Dr. Cook
adequately identify what level of exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil is capable of producing the harmful health effects
alleged by the Plaintiff. Indeed, as numerous Sections of this
Court have pointed out, Dr. Cook does not even specify the exact
chemicals that the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, let alone
provide evidence regarding the level of exposure at which his
symptoms might manifest.

Because she finds that Dr. Cook's Report fails to demonstrate the
"minimal facts necessary to sustain the Plaintiff's burden in a
toxic tort case," i.e., the harmful exposure level, Judge Vitter
does not find it necessary to address the Defendant's other
arguments as to why the Report should be excluded. Accordingly, she
finds that Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying as an expert
on general causation in this matter.

Dr. Cook's Report is the Plaintiff's sole expert opinion on general
causation. Because Judge Vitter finds it appropriate to exclude the
Report for failure to comport with the Daubert standards for
reliability, the Plaintiff accordingly lacks expert testimony on
general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to
prove general causation, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a
genuine dispute of material fact as to his claims that his injuries
were caused by exposure to oil. "When a plaintiff has no expert
testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial, the
plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage."
Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted
as the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due
to the Plaintiff's failure to establish causation.

Accordingly, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion to
Exclude and their Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff's
claims against the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ycyn5zve from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: Court Excludes Cook's Expert Testimony in Hill Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBYN HILL v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., SECTION D (1), Civil Action No. 17-3252 (E.D. La.), Judge
Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana issued an order granting the following motions filed
by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America
Production Company, BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.:

   a. the Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of
      Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and

   b. the Motion for Summary Judgment.

The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf
Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who
presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However,
certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted
out of or were excluded from the MSA. Hill opted out of the MSA
and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff.

Ms. Hill filed this individual action against the Defendants on
April 11, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the oil spill. For approximately 14 months in 2010 and
2011, she alleges that she was exposed to both oil and dispersants
in Gulf Shores, Alabama, Mississippi Coast, Mississippi, and
Raceland, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and
recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently
failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused
her to suffer myriad injuries including nausea, dizziness,
gastritis, joint pain, shortness of breath, and headaches.
Specifically, she seeks to recover economic damages, personal
injury damages -- including damages for past and future medical
expenses and for pain and suffering -- punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

To help support her claims that exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused her particular health
symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr.
Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise
specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His
Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather,
his generic causation report has been utilized by numerous B3
plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court as
well as in other cases before other sections of this court.
Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation
and not to specific causation.

The Defendant filed the instant Motions on July 11, 2022. In their
Daubert Motion in Limine, they contend that Dr. Cook's report
should be excluded as it is both unreliable and unhelpful to the
trier of fact. They primarily point to the opinions of other
sections of the Court which have excluded this very same Report on
grounds of unreliability to suggest that it should likewise exclude
the Report. Further, the Defendants contend that Dr. Cook's
specific methodology is unreliable and that he failed to establish
the harmful level of exposure to the chemicals the Plaintiff
allegedly was exposed to at which harmful health effects occur.
Next, because Dr. Cook should be excluded to testify, Defendants
argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as
the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation through
expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit
precedent.

The Plaintiff disputes the Defendants' characterization of Dr.
Cook's Report. She argues that Dr. Cook utilized a proper
methodology in conducting his general causation analysis and that
he thoroughly explained his methods. Further, she argues that the
Report does provide adequate harmful exposure level data for each
health condition exhibited by the Plaintiff and that to the extent
that Dr. Cook is unable to provide more specific exposure-level
data, it is the fault of the Defendants for improperly restricting
access to scientific research teams to gather such data. Finally,
the Plaintiff contends that expert testimony is not necessary for a
transient symptom case. Further, in her opposition to the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff points to
orders from other sections of the Court which concluded that expert
testimony may not be required to establish symptoms within the
common knowledge of lay people.

Judge Vitter concurs with the other sections of the Court that have
addressed this issue and found Dr. Cook's failure to address the
level of harmful dosage of each relevant chemical to be ultimately
fatal to his report. At no point in his report does Dr. Cook
adequately identify what level of exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil is capable of producing the harmful health effects
alleged by the Plaintiff. Indeed, as numerous Sections of the Court
have pointed out, Dr. Cook does not even specify the exact
chemicals that the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, let alone
provide evidence regarding the level of exposure at which her
symptoms might manifest.

Because she finds that Dr. Cook's Report fails to demonstrate the
"minimal facts necessary to sustain the Plaintiff's burden in a
toxic tort case," i.e., the harmful exposure level, Judge Vitter
does not find it necessary to address the Defendant's other
arguments as to why the Report should be excluded. Accordingly, she
finds that Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying as an expert
on general causation in this matter.

Dr. Cook's Report is the Plaintiff's sole expert opinion on general
causation. Because Judge Vitter finds it appropriate to exclude the
Report for failure to comport with the Daubert standards for
reliability, the Plaintiff accordingly lacks expert testimony on
general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to
prove general causation, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a
genuine dispute of material fact as to her claims that her injuries
were caused by exposure to oil. "When a plaintiff has no expert
testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial, the
plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage."
Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted
as the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due
to the Plaintiff's failure to establish causation.

Accordingly, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion to
Exclude and their Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff's
claims against the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/fr2dj85f from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Bengson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA BENGSON v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.,
ET AL., SECTION D (1), Civil Action No. 17-3210 (E.D. La.), Judge
Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana issued an order granting the following motions filed
by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America
Production Company, BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.:

   a. the Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of
      Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and

   b. the Motion for Summary Judgment.

The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf
Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who
presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However,
certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted
out of or were excluded from the MSA. Bengson opted out of the MSA
and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff.

Mr. Bengson filed this individual action against the Defendants on
April 11, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the oil spill. Throughout July 2010, he worked as a first
mate on a boat, the Sail-Man, tasked with cleaning up oil and
oil-covered debris and rescuing oil-covered animals from the waters
near Destin, Florida.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and
recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently
failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused
him to suffer myriad injuries including shortness of breath, throat
irritation, headaches, skin irritation, and upper chest pain.
Specifically, he seeks to recover economic damages, personal injury
damages -- including damages for past and future medical expenses
and for pain and suffering -- punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses.

To help support his claims that exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused his particular health
symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr.
Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise
specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His
Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather,
his generic causation report has been utilized by numerous B3
plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court as
well as in other cases before other sections of this court.
Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation
and not to specific causation.

The Defendant filed the instant Motions on July 11, 2022. In their
Daubert Motion in Limine, they contend that Dr. Cook's report
should be excluded as it is both unreliable and unhelpful to the
trier of fact. They primarily point to the opinions of other
sections of the Court which have excluded this very same Report on
grounds of unreliability to suggest that it should likewise exclude
the Report. Further, the Defendants contend that Dr. Cook's
specific methodology is unreliable and that he failed to establish
the harmful level of exposure to the chemicals the Plaintiff
allegedly was exposed to at which harmful health effects occur.
Next, because Dr. Cook should be excluded to testify, the
Defendants argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary
Judgment as the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation
through expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling
Circuit precedent.

The Plaintiff disputes the Defendants' characterization of Dr.
Cook's Report. He argues that Dr. Cook utilized a proper
methodology in conducting his general causation analysis and that
he thoroughly explained his methods. Further, he argues that the
Report does provide adequate harmful exposure level data for each
health condition he exhibited and that to the extent that Dr. Cook
is unable to provide more specific exposure-level data, it is the
fault of the Defendants for improperly restricting access to
scientific research teams to gather such data. Finally, the
Plaintiff contends that expert testimony is not necessary for a
transient symptom case. Further, in his opposition to the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff points to
orders from other sections of the Court which concluded that expert
testimony may not be required to establish symptoms within the
common knowledge of lay people.

Judge Vitter concurs with the other sections of the Court that have
addressed this issue and found Dr. Cook's failure to address the
level of harmful dosage of each relevant chemical to be ultimately
fatal to his report. At no point in his report does Dr. Cook
adequately identify what level of exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil is capable of producing the harmful health effects
alleged by the Plaintiff. Indeed, as numerous Sections of the Court
have pointed out, Dr. Cook does not even specify the exact
chemicals that the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, let alone
provide evidence regarding the level of exposure at which hi
symptoms might manifest.

Because she finds that Dr. Cook's Report fails to demonstrate the
"minimal facts necessary to sustain the Plaintiff's burden in a
toxic tort case," i.e., the harmful exposure level, Judge Vitter
does not find it necessary to address the Defendant's other
arguments as to why the Report should be excluded. Accordingly, she
finds that Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying as an expert
on general causation in this matter.

Dr. Cook's Report is the Plaintiff's sole expert opinion on general
causation. Because Judge Vitter finds it appropriate to exclude the
Report for failure to comport with the Daubert standards for
reliability, the Plaintiff accordingly lacks expert testimony on
general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to
prove general causation, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a
genuine dispute of material fact as to his claims that his injuries
were caused by exposure to oil. "When a plaintiff has no expert
testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial, the
plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage."
Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted
as the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due
to the Plaintiff's failure to establish causation.

Accordingly, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion to
Exclude and their Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff's
claims against the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p933n7j from Leagle.com.


BPS FINANCIAL: Lead Applicants to Pay Security Costs in Qoin Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Cansdale, writing for ABC News, reports that a drawn-out
class action against the digital currency Qoin may soon reach a
close, with those alleging misleading conduct required to pay
security for court costs as a condition of continuing their claim.


Federal Court Justice Rodger Derrington has ordered the class
action's lead applicants Its Eco Pty Ltd and Bethany Joy McManus to
provide $750,000 to the court in security for the legal fees of the
entities behind Qoin by Oct. 7.

Those costs will be held by the court and paid if the class action
goes to trial but does not succeed.

The class action, which is represented by Salerno Law, alleges that
the entities behind Qoin have engaged in misleading or deceptive or
unconscionable conduct under Australian Consumer Law, the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and the
Corporations Act.

According to Federal Court documents, the lead applicant's
statement of claim alleges:

"Inconsistently with the representations, Qoin was not a liquid
cryptocurrency in that it was difficult or impossible to exchange
for fiat (government-issued) currency or for goods and services,"
the documents read.

"Or, at least, it developed those characteristics from March
2021."

BPS Financial Services -- one of the respondents in the class
action -- has previously denied the allegations.

What is Qoin?
Based on the Gold Coast, Qoin has been bought and sold exclusively
on Block Trade Exchange (BTX) for Australian dollars or used to
purchase goods and services.

Both Qoin and BTX are owned by BPS Financial Limited.

In March last year, BTX capped sales to $125 worth of Qoin per
account, per day.

The 24-hour volume of Qoin being sold on BTX has dropped from a
high of $700,000 in early 2021 to $1,000 last week.

Basis for action
In a written decision that determined whether the class action
should provide the security costs, Justice Derrington stated its
members alleged that they were "induced by certain express and
implied misrepresentation to acquire or invest" in Qoin.

In dealing with respondents' submissions that the value of Qoin had
increased over time, Justice Derrington stated there was a "real
question" over the liquidity of Qoin, with no evidence presented
that the applicants had been able to sell or convert their Qoin to
fiat after March 2021.

Although, he said there was some evidence of daily sales of
$1,000.

"Whilst some small sales have been identified, there was no
evidence that if Its Eco sought to sell its current holdings there
would be willing buyers for it at the identified prices," Justice
Derrington wrote.

The Federal Court heard the class action members had a combined
$4.3 million investment in Qoin, but that their alleged losses had
not been calculated.

Justice Derrington stated there was a "persuasive onus" on the
class action applicants to demonstrate "at least to some degree"
that they had suffered a loss.

He has stated that without demonstrating an alleged loss, it
"indicates that the Court cannot reach the conclusion that the lead
applicants have a strong case".

Uncertainty over security costs
Justice Derrington ordered that the security costs be provided
because "the action is pursued for the benefit of an apparently
large number of persons who stand to gain from its success . . .
but whom are not protected from an adverse costs order and not
shown to be without means".

"Conversely, the respondents who are at risk of a substantial costs
order in the proceedings have no opportunity to recover costs if
the claim is unsuccessful," he said.

Justice Derrington noted that the two lead applicants appeared
unable to afford the security costs.

"Its Eco has a deficiency of assets over liabilities and no
retained profits such that, if the action were unsuccessful, it is
clear that it would not be in a position to meet any of the
respondents' claims for costs," he wrote.

"Ms McManus has deposed to her financial standing, which discloses
that she would also be unable to meet any adverse costs order were
the action to be unsuccessful."

While Justice Derrington has stated that "no such funder has
emerged to underwrite the action and there is no evidence that any
will be forthcoming", he has also noted that did not indicate the
class action's claims had no substance. [GN]

CANADA: Wants Black Service Employees' Class Action Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
Darren Major, writing for CBC News, reports that the federal
government has filed a court motion calling on a judge to dismiss a
class-action lawsuit filed by Black civil service employees on
jurisdictional grounds.

The proposed class action -- launched in December 2020 -- accuses
the federal government of systemic racism, discrimination and
employee exclusion. It alleges that, since the 1970s, roughly
30,000 Black civil services employees have lost out on
"opportunities and benefits afforded to others based on their
race."

The statement of claim says the lawsuit is seeking damages to
compensate Black federal employees for their mental and economic
hardships. Plaintiffs also are asking for a plan to diversify the
federal labour force and eliminate barriers that employment equity
laws have been unable to remove.

But a motion filed on behalf of the federal government says the
court doesn't have jurisdiction over the case and the claim should
instead be pursued through labour grievances.

The motion says that all related claims should fall under either
the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board or
the Canadian Human Rights Act.

A statement from the Treasury Board of Canada, which oversees the
federal workforce, said the government is working to create an
inclusive and diverse public service but the issues brought forth
in the class action shouldn't be addressed in court.

"There is an existing process to deal with harassment and
discrimination in the public service," the statement said, adding
that the government's position is consistent with previous
government responses to class actions.

Nicholas Marcus Thompson is executive director of the Black Class
Action Secretariat, the group that filed the suit. He said he is
"extremely disappointed" by the government's motion.

"[The government] has acknowledged these harms and now they're
moving to strike the entire claim, to deny workers their day in
court," Thompson told CBC.

Thompson disputed the government's suggestion that the claims could
be dealt with as labour grievances.

"These systems are not equipped to address systemic discrimination,
and within them . . . there's inherent biases. The systemic
discrimination exists in all of the institutions," he said.

NDP MP Matthew Green called the government's motion "callous" in a
tweet on Oct. 4.

"They've been working to dismiss the harms they have caused through
perpetrating anti-Black racism within the public service for
decades," he said.

Group files UN complaint
The secretariat filed a complaint with the United Nations
Commission for Human Rights Special Rapporteur on racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

"With this complaint, we are elevating Canada's past failures and
failure to act in the present to an international body," Thompson
told a press conference in Ottawa on Sept. 28.

Thompson said the secretariat hopes the UN special rapporteur
investigates its claims and calls on Canada to meet its
international obligations to Black employees by establishing a plan
to increase opportunities for Black women in the government and
develop specific targets for hiring and promoting Black workers.

In response to the UN complaint, Mona Fortier, president of the
Treasury Board, said that far too many Black Canadians still face
discrimination and hate.

"The government is actively working to address harms and to create
a diverse and inclusive public service free from harassment and
discrimination. We passed legislation, created support and
development programs and published disaggregated data -- but know
there is still more to do," Fortier said in a media statement. [GN]

CARVANA CO: Pretrial Conference in Car Buyers' Suit Set Nov. 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a new development in the lawsuit against Carvana, the 11
News I-Team has learned.

Hundreds of car buyers from Maryland and nearby states are part of
the class-action lawsuit against Carvana. The company wanted a
federal judge to toss it out, but the judge didn't.

When the I-Team last visited Jo Riedel, of Aberdeen, walking had
become his main mode of transportation -- that was after a tow
truck repossessed his 2017 Mitsubishi Outlander.

Riedel had stopped paying on the car. He decided to let it happen
after receiving only temporary tags that kept expiring and getting
stopped twice by police. He told the I-Team he just wanted to end
the frustration.

"It's been a full year of just needless headache and feeling of
being ripped off and extra stress on our family that we don't
need," Riedel said.

He couldn't legally drive the SUV because he couldn't properly
register it in Maryland. His complaint is similar to others in a
class-action lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania, alleging violations
under the state's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Carvana denies any and all liability. The company attempted to get
the case thrown out, claiming it was without merit. The company
filed a motion to compel or force arbitration and dismiss the case
but a federal judge denied it.

Attorney Phillip Robinson is one of the attorneys representing
Carvana customers in the lawsuit.

When asked what the judge's ruling means, Robinson said: "It means
the case gets to go forward. Their effort to have it dismissed,
saying we haven't pled legal claims is denied."

Robinson said hundreds of people across the country have been
impacted.

"No one buys a car to sit in the driveway. People buy a car to get
to work or school or to go see family members. It's troubling to us
the cavalier approach to selling a car that you can't provide title
to," he said.

In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for Carvana told the
I-Team: "A handful of historical registration delays are not
reflective of our outstanding customer experiences." Carvana does
not agree with the judge's decision and said: "This is just a
procedural ruling; it does not change that the legal theory of this
case is wrong."

The spokesperson wrote: "We look forward to winning this case in
court and view this as nothing more than a predictable attempt by
class-action attorneys to try and profit off of minor-alleged
paperwork issues during the COVID-19 pandemic."

"COVID is not an excuse for the continuing problems," Robinson
said. "Respectfully, I think most of these people I talked to who
can't drive their cars legally, they didn't get the benefit of the
bargain."

The judge ordered Carvana to file an answer to the complaint. A
pretrial conference is set for Nov. 23. [GN]

CENTESSA PHARMA: Sued Over Decline in Securities Market Value
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamia Fernandes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CENTESSA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC, SAURABH SAHA, GREGORY
WEINHOFF, MARELLA THORELL, FRANCESCO DE RUBERTIS, ARJUN GOYAL,
AARON KANTOFF, BRETT ZBAR, MARY LYNNE HEDLEY, SAMARTH KULKARNI,
CAROL STUCKLEY, and ROBERT CALIFF, Case No. 2:22-cv-07030 (C.D.
Cal., Sept. 28, 2022), is brought pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Company's securities, on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired: (a) Centessa American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued
in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted
on or about May 28, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b)
Centessa securities between May 28, 2021 and June 1, 2022, both
dates inclusive.

The Company's development pipeline includes, among other products,
lixivaptan, a vasopressin V2 receptor small molecule inhibitor in
Phase 3 clinical development for the treatment of autosomal
dominant polycystic kidney disease ("ADPKD"); and ZF874, a small
molecule pharmacological chaperone folding corrector of the Z
variant of the DNA encoding protein alpha-1-antitrypsin ("A1AT"),
which is in Phase 1 clinical development for the treatment of A1AT
deficiency ("AATD").

On April 21, 2021, Centessa filed a registration statement on Form
S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on May 27, 2021 (the
"Registration Statement"). On May 28, 2021, Centessa conducted the
IPO, issuing 16.5 million of its ADSs to the public at the Offering
price of $20 per ADS, for proceeds of $306.9 million to the Company
after expenses and applicable underwriting discounts. On June 1,
2021, Centessa filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in
connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, collectively with the
Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").

The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
lixivaptan was less safe than Defendants had represented; (ii)
Defendants overstated lixivaptan's clinical and commercial
prospects; (iii) ZF874 was less safe than Defendants had
represented; (iv) Defendants overstated ZF874's clinical and
commercial prospects while downplaying the drug's safety issues;
and (v) as a result, the Offering Documents and the Company's
public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false
and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be
stated.

On November 1, 2021, Centessa issued a press release announcing
results from the Phase 1 study evaluating ZF874 in treating AATD,
including, among other results, potential safety issues related to
increases in liver enzymes alanine aminotransferase ("ALT") and
aspartate aminotransferase ("AST") in one of the study subjects. On
this news, Centessa's ADS price fell $3.19 per share, or 18.55%, to
close at $14.01 per share on November 1, 2021.On June 2, 2022,
Centessa issued a press release "announcing that it has made the
strategic decision to discontinue development of lixivaptan for
[ADPKD,]" citing "a recent observation of [ALT] and [AST]
elevations in one subject" from a Phase 3 study of lixivaptan that
was designed to assess liver and non-liver safety in certain
subjects. On this news, Centessa's ADS price fell $1.25 per share,
or 27.78%, to close at $3.25 per share on June 2, 2022.

Then, on August 10, 2022, Centessa issued a press release
"announcing its decision to discontinue development of ZF874
following a recent report of an adverse event (AE) involving
elevated liver enzymes (AST/ALT) in a subject dosed with 5 mg/kg
BID of ZF874 in the Phase 1 study." Centessa stated that "based on
the results observed to date, the Company concluded that ZF874 was
unlikely to achieve the desired target product profile." On this
news, Centessa's ADS price fell $0.26 per share, or 5.19%, to close
at $4.75 per share on August 10, 2022, representing a total decline
of 76.25% from the $20.00 per ADS Offering price.

As of the time this Complaint was filed, Centessa's ADS price
continues to trade significantly below the $20.00 per ADS Offering
price, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Centessa ADSs
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the IPO, and/or Centessa ADSs during the Class
Period.

Centessa is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company that purports
to discover, develop, and deliver medicines to patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 405-7190
          Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Sued for Using Callers' Biometric Voice Prints
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that The
Charles Schwab Corp. recorded, stored, and used callers' biometric
voice prints without their consent in violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, a new federal class action lawsuit said.

Kirk Laughead alleged in a complaint filed on Oct. 3 that the
company uses voice prints and voice stress patterns to verify the
identity of callers and determine the truth or falsity of their
statements, and does so without first obtaining express written
consent as required under the CIPA.

Creating a voice print involves extracting an individual's unique
speech patterns, tones, and other characteristics to create audible
fingerprints. [GN]



CLINIVATE LLC: Gutierrez-Torres Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clinivate, LLC. The
case is styled as Hector Gutierrez-Torres, individually and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Clinivate,
LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-06532-DMG-JC (C.D. Cal., Sept. 13, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Clinivate -- https://clinivate.com/ -- creates software solutions
for behavioral health providers, clinicians and managers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J Nelson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          280 South Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: (619) 209-6941
          Fax: (865) 522-0049
          Email: jnelson@milberg.com

               - and -

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
          Washington, DC 20015
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Fax: (202) 686-2877
          Email: dlietz@milberg.com

               - and -

          Trenton R Kashima, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          401 West C Street Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (714) 651-8845
          Fax: (919) 600-6035
          Email: tkashima@milberg.com


CONSUMER COLLECTION: Blake Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consumer Collection
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Crystal Blake, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consumer
Collection Management, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-01035-SRW (E.D. Mo.,
Sept. 28, 2022).

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

Consumer Collection Management -- https://consumercollection.com/
-- specializes in debt collection, skip tracing, payment
monitoring, insurance department and billing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


CVS HEALTH: Been Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carla Been, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
Does 1 through 10, Case No. 22SF-CC03550 was removed from the
Circuit Court for St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for
Eastern District of Missouri on Sept. 14, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00964-HEA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

CVS Health Corporation -- https://www.cvshealth.com/ -- is an
American healthcare company that owns CVS Pharmacy, a retail
pharmacy chain; CVS Caremark, a pharmacy benefits manager; and
Aetna, a health insurance provider, among many other brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
          HARVATH LAW GROUP LLC
          75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Phone: (314) 550-3717
          Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rachel Carmen Groves, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY LLP - Kansas City
          2555 Grand Blvd.
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 474-6550
          Email: rcgroves@shb.com


DEBICS LLC: Taylor Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Credit Card Tip
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Taylor, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
Debics LLC; Christopher Chukwukelu; and John Doe 1–10; Doe
Corporation 1–10; Case No. 3:22-cv-02141-E (N.D. Tex., Sept. 27,
2022), is brought against the Defendants seeking appropriate
monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on the
Defendants' willfully keeping all credit card all tips provided by
customers in contravention of the Fair Labor Standards Act and as
well as damages under the theory of unjust enrichment.

The Defendants paid the Plaintiff and the Insiders at or above
minimum wage. Insiders at the Defendants' Domino's store regularly
received cash and credit card tips. The Defendants required
Insiders to split any cash tip that was handed to them among all
workers that were inside the store at the time. The Defendants kept
all credit card tips from orders that were picked up in the store
and did not distribute them to Insiders. The Defendants used the
tips they kept to cover any shortages at the end of the night. If
shortages were greater than the amount of credit card tips on a
given day, the Defendants required the closing supervisor pay the
difference out of their pocket.

The Defendants required the Plaintiff and the Insiders to
contribute any and all of their credit card tips to the company.
The Defendants were not permitted to require Plaintiff and the
Insiders to pay for costs associated with shortages. The
Defendants' unlawful conduct is pursuant to a corporate policy or
practice of minimizing business costs by using credit card tips
received by the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective to pay for the
Defendants' business costs, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an Insider at the
Defendants' Domino's store in Quinlan, Texas.

The Defendants operate at least one Domino's Pizza location in
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT LAW FIRM PLLC
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 550
          Dallas, Texas 75202
          Phone: 214-965-9675
          Facsimile: 214-965-9680
          Email: matt@mattscottlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Riley E. Kane, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Phone: (513) 715-8711
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          Email: akimble@billerkimble.com
                 abiller@billerkimble.com
                 rkane@billerkimble.com


DOWN IN THE VALLEY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Down in the Valley,
Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Down in the Valley, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08278 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2022).

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

Down in the Valley -- https://downinthevalley.com/ -- is voted
Minnesota's Best Record Store 2021, Star Tribune The Twin Cities
record store, gifts, and smoking accessories since 1972.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


ESPN INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Sharing
-----------------------------------------------------------
BSM reports that according to a potential class action lawsuit,
user data from ESPN.com and ESPN+ has been allegedly shared with
Meta Platforms without users consent.

Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org has proposed the suit, alleging
that ESPN "uses a pixel installed on the back end of its website to
track when website and app users take certain actions, such as
clicking on an ad or viewing video content". That "pixel" is used
by Facebook to capture "a subscriber's Facebook ID, with which
anyone can 'quickly and easily' locate, access, and identify a
particular Facebook account and a file containing details of a
watched video and its corresponding URL."

Rizzi adds that ESPN.com and ESPN+ subscribers aren't told their
data could be shared. He also shares that while ESPN could create
its website to information isn't immediately shared with Facebook,
it benefits financially from utilizing the "pixel" on its website.

The proposed suit alleges these are violations of the Video Privacy
Protection Act. The VPAA, according to ClassAction.org, "prohibits
'video tape service providers' from knowingly disclosing without
consent consumers' personally identifiable information, including
that which identifies someone as having requested or obtained
specific video materials". [GN]

EUROCRAFT CONTRACTING: Rojas Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EUROCRAFT CONTRACTING LLC and EURO
CONTRACTING INC. and GIACOMO CHIARAMONTE, as an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05856 (E.D.N.Y., September 30, 2022)
brings this collective action complaint against the Defendants to
recover damages as a result of its alleged egregious violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around
December 2013 until in or around March 2022 as a laborer and
carpenter assistant while performing related miscellaneous duties
for the Defendants.

The Plaintiff claims that he was regularly required by the
Defendants to work approximately 46 and a half hours each week.
However, the Defendants only compensated him for approximately 24
to 36 hours per week, thereby failing to compensate him for
approximately 4 to 16 of his regular hours worked up to 40 hours
per week, for an average of 10 hours of unpaid regular time per
week. In addition, the Defendant willfully failed to pay him
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his
regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff also asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment;

     -- The Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll records;

     -- The Defendants willfully failed to provide him with a
written notice of his applicable regular rate of pay, regular pay
day, and all such information; and

     -- The Defendants willfully failed to provide him with any
wage statements upon each payment of his wages.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated laborers and
carpenters, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
litigation costs together with reasonable attorneys' fees, and
other relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate.

Eurocraft Contracting LLC and Euro Contracting Inc. provides
construction services. Giacomo Chiaramonte is the owner of the
Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Tel: (718) 263-9591

F21 OPCO LLC: Rodgers Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against F21 OpCo, LLC. The
case is styled as Faith Rodgers, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. F21 OpCo, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-07825-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

F21 Opco is located in Los Angeles, California categorized under
Cosmetic and Perfume Stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW PC
          1 Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Phone: (516) 873-9550
          Fax: (516) 747-5024
          Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

FEALS INC: Raslavich Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Raslavich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Feals, Inc., Case No. 157600107 (Fla. 13th Judicial
Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Sept. 16, 2022), is brought against
the Defendant for the Defendant's violations of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act by engaging in unsolicited telephonic
sales calls.

To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff and
the Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's unlawful
conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal
rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue. Through
this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of the Plaintiff individually 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."

The Defendant is a consumer goods retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FEDEX GROUND: 450 Opt-Ins in Claiborne Suit Dismissed W/ Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HORACE CLAIBORNE, SONJIA MONIQUE BOWLIN, TYSHAWN
WALKER, WILLIE SEALS, FREDERICK EPPICH, JEROME SCHOOLFIELD,
KRISTINA TRAVIS, JEREMY WINKELS, DANIEL FORRESTER, MARK DAVID
GRIFFETH, DOUGLAS RUSSELL, KENNETH BURTON, GERALD GENSOLI, and
THOMAS DEPPIESSE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01698-RJC (W.D. Pa.), Judge Robert J.
Colville of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion:

   (1) granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss 450 Opt-In
       Plaintiffs Based on Fedex's Scanner Data;

   (2) denying FedEx's Rule 37 Motion for Sanctions Relating to
       Opt-In Plaintiff, Keith Strege;

   (3) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
       Motion to Compel the Production of Documents; and

   (4) granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Production
       of Certain FedEx Policies.

The present case is a hybrid collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and Rule 23 class action brought under the
laws of certain states by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated individuals against FedEx
for its alleged failure to pay requisite overtime compensation to
the Plaintiffs.

As the Court has noted in previous opinions in the case, the
Plaintiffs assert that they were employed by FedEx through
intermediary employers to perform delivery services on FedEx's
behalf. They further assert that FedEx has violated the FLSA by not
paying overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs for all hours worked
over 40 each week.

In their Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs seek dismissal without
prejudice of 450 opt-ins in the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(2). They candidly acknowledge that these 450 opt-ins cannot
maintain a claim for unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA
because they did not drive trucks weighing less than 10,000 pounds
during the relevant timeframe on a level above de minimis work, and
that they thus are not eligible to receive overtime compensation
under the Small Vehicle Exception to the Motor Carrier Act
Exemption.

While the Plaintiffs request dismissal without prejudice of the
litigants at issue in their Motion to Dismiss, Judge Colville finds
that they provide no basis for the same. The Plaintiffs have
conceded that the discovery provided by FedEx is true and accurate
as to the vehicles driven by the 449 opt-ins at issue in their
Motion to Dismiss, and, in so doing, acknowledge that they cannot,
as a matter of law and fact, maintain an FLSA claim against FedEx.
Even if the Plaintiffs are correct that each of the five factors
they cite support dismissal of their claims without prejudice,
Judge Colville cannot disregard their own admission that the 449
opt-in Plaintiffs at issue in the Motion to Dismiss cannot maintain
a claim against FedEx.

The Small Vehicle Exception is essential to the Plaintiffs' claims
in this matter, and the failure of certain opt-in Plaintiffs to
qualify for potential overtime compensation under this Exception
was the basis for their lack of opposition to, and the Court's
decision to grant, a recent summary judgment motion. Quite simply,
the Plaintiffs have conceded that the individuals at issue in their
Motion to Dismiss cannot maintain a claim against FedEx because
they are exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirement. Further, they
do so late in this case, which has been pending since December of
2018. Moreover, they have moved to dismiss these opt-in Plaintiffs
while a summary judgment motion was pending.

In light of the above, Judge Colville believes that dismissal with
prejudice of these individuals is warranted. He declines FedEx's
request, by way of a brief in opposition, for a sua sponte
decertification of the collective in this matter. The Court will
entertain a motion regarding the same when appropriately filed, but
would not encourage either party to file a motion regarding final
certification or decertification before sufficient discovery has
taken place to allow for all relevant arguments to be presented in
a single motion. Judge Colville strongly discourages inefficient,
successive motion practice. That said, if either party believes the
same will greatly streamline resolution of the case, the parties
are granted leave to file such a motion.

In its Motion for Sanctions, FedEx seeks monetary sanctions under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 against opt-in Plaintiff Keith Strege based upon
Strege's failure to adhere to Court orders, and specifically his
failure to attend a deposition on two separate occasions. FedEx
seeks reasonable fees and costs under Rule 37 for the time and
costs associated with discovery as to Strege, as well as his
failure to appear for his deposition. It requests that the
Plaintiffs' counsel, rather than Strege, be responsible for at
least two-thirds of any fees and costs that are awarded associated
with the discovery for Strege, and 100% of the fees and costs for
FedEx's preparation of the Motion for Sanctions. It also requests
that Strege be dismissed with prejudice from the action, and the
Plaintiffs do not oppose this request.

Judge Colville opines that by way of its Aug. 12, 2021 Memorandum
Opinion, the Court provided the parties with "clear guidance" as to
how individuals who failed to comply with Court orders directing
them to comply with discovery requests would be viewed by the
Court. It explained that opt-ins who failed to comply with such
Court orders would be subject to dismissal with prejudice for the
reasons articulated in that Memorandum Opinion. Strege failed to
appear for his deposition in violation of the Court's March 29,
2022 Order, which advised him that his dismissal from this matter
was a potential, if not likely consequence of such action.
Moreover, Strege does not oppose dismissal with prejudice. He will
be dismissed from this action with prejudice.

With respect to FedEx's request for monetary sanctions against
Strege, and as the Court has already explained, "attorneys' fees
and costs are neither appropriate nor likely to be effective in a
case involving comparatively low wage employees serving in a
representative capacity." Strege's claims will be dismissed with
prejudice based upon his failure to comply with the Court's March
29, 2022 Order, and this is a sufficient sanction against an
individual. In the Court's estimation, the addition of attorney's
fees and costs on top of dismissal with prejudice would tend to
make an award of expenses unjust. Judge Colville cautions that this
holding may not be extended to future non-compliant opt-ins should
repeated non-compliance become the norm among the Plaintiffs chosen
for depositions.

Judge Colville will not award sanctions in the form of all costs
associated with discovery as to Strege, as FedEx requests, but
rather will award fees and costs associated only with the
preparation of the Motion for Sanctions. FedEx will be directed to
confer with the Plaintiffs' counsel regarding its reasonable costs
and fees associated with the filing of the Motion for Sanctions. If
the parties are unable to reach agreement on the amount of costs
and fees, FedEx may file, within 14 days of the Court's Order, its
bill of purported reasonable costs and fees. The Plaintiffs may
then submit an appropriate response within 10 days.

The Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Documents requests that the Court
enters an order compelling FedEx to provide three categories of
documents in discovery: (1) documents pertaining to First
Advantage, which is purportedly a third-party vendor that FedEx
utilizes to screen drivers desiring to work for FedEx and its
Service Providers; (2) "driver disqualification documents" for a
larger sampling of drivers; and (3) certain "compliance documents"
regarding wage and hour audits for a larger sampling of Service
Providers. They assert that each of these categories of documents
will prove relevant to the Court's eventual consideration of the
issue of whether FedEx was a "joint employer" during the timeframe
relevant.

With respect to the First Advantage documents, Judge Colville
agrees with the Plaintiffs that the contracts between FedEx and
First Advantage could possibly lead to the discovery of evidence
relevant to the question of whether common evidence can be used to
prove the Enterprise factors, and specifically with respect to
FedEx's purported authority to hire. FedEx's relevance objections
are noted, and it can argue that these contracts are irrelevant at
the final certification/decertification stage. The Court will
determine the documents' ultimate relevance at the appropriate
time, if necessary. The Motion to Compel Documents will be granted
as to the Plaintiffs' request for FedEx/First Advantage contracts.

Judge Colville agrees with FedEx that the Plaintiffs fail to
sufficiently inform the Court as to why the First Advantage emails
are sought and how they might ultimately be relevant to the Court's
inquiry into whether the collective is similarly situated. As
currently constructed, the request is overbroad and asks FedEx to
undertake a burdensome ESI inquiry. The Motion to Compel Documents
will be denied with respect to the Plaintiffs' email sampling
request.

Turning to the "driver disqualification documents," the Plaintiffs
seek to compel FedEx to provide such driver disqualification
documents for a larger sampling of opt-ins than has already been
provided.

Judge Colville will compel FedEx to produce "driver
disqualification documents," as defined in the Motion to Compel
Documents, for 100 individuals selected by Plaintiffs that meet the
definition of "(i)" above, i.e. individuals who, at the time of the
filing of the Motion to Compel Documents, had participated in
discovery, had returned a completed questionnaire, and who were not
the subject of FedEx' Feb. 14, 2022 Motion to Dismiss. Absent a
more particularized showing of the necessity for the same, he is
not inclined, at this time, to order that FedEx be required to
produce such documents for "any individual who in the future signs
and returns a complete questionnaire."

With respect to the "compliance documents" regarding FedEx's wage
and hour audits for a larger sampling of Service Providers, Judge
Colville finds that the documents sought by the Plaintiffs may lead
to the discovery of some relevant evidence as to the relationship
between FedEx, Service Providers, and drivers that may ultimately
be relevant as to whether the Plaintiffs can prove that they are
similarly situated and that FedEx is their joint employer. Again,
he also agrees with FedEx that this discovery should be limited to
an extent in the interest of proportionality. He will compel FedEx
to produce "compliance documents," as defined in the Motion to
Compel Documents, pertaining to the Service Providers who paid the
100 individuals selected by the Plaintiffs for the "driver
disqualification documents." To the extent that FedEx claims that
any of these documents is privileged, it may provide a privilege
log identifying the purportedly privileged document and setting
forth the basis for its assertion of privilege.

In their Motion to Compel Policies, the Plaintiffs request that the
Court enters an order compelling FedEx to provide what they
characterize as a "large number of additional relevant policies and
procedures referenced but not yet produced by FedEx." FedEx again
objects on the basis of relevance, and further asserts that the
documents sought by way of the Motion to Compel Policies are
cumulative because "extensive discovery into the nature of the
relationship between FedEx Ground and Service Providers has been
done.

Judge Colville finds that the internal FedEx documents sought by
way of the Motion to Compel Policies may lead to the discovery of
evidence relevant to the question of whether common evidence can be
used to prove the Enterprise factors. FedEx has offered minimal
argument as to the burden that would be imposed by being required
to produce its own internal policies. While the information sought
may be cumulative to an extent, the Court is inclined to require
the production of the internal FedEx documents at this juncture,
subject to any privilege objections raised by FedEx, and properly
identified and described in a privilege log. Should any legitimate
disagreement arise regarding what documents are publicly available,
what documents do not exist, and/or what documents have already
been produced to date, the parties are directed to first confer in
an effort to resolve such disputes without Court involvement.

To the extent that the documents sought by way of the discovery
requests at issue in the Motion to Compel Policies exist, are not
publicly available, and/or have not already been provided, Judge
Colville will enter an order compelling FedEx to provide the same
within 30 days of the Court's Order. To the extent that FedEx
claims that any of these documents is privileged, FedEx may provide
a privilege log identifying the purportedly privileged document and
setting forth the basis for its assertion of privilege. He will
award no fees or expenses associated with either Motion to Compel.

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Colville will enter an Order
disposing of the Motions at issue in his Memorandum Opinion
consistent with his analysis. An appropriate Order of Court
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckuasyt from Leagle.com.


FEDEX GROUND: Court Narrows State Law Claims in Claiborne Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HORACE CLAIBORNE, SONJIA MONIQUE BOWLIN, TYSHAWN
WALKER, WILLIE SEALS, FREDERICK EPPICH, JEROME SCHOOLFIELD,
KRISTINA TRAVIS, JEREMY WINKELS, DANIEL FORRESTER, MARK DAVID
GRIFFETH, DOUGLAS RUSSELL, KENNETH BURTON, GERALD GENSOLI, and
THOMAS DEPPIESSE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01698-RJC (W.D. Pa.), Judge Robert J.
Colville of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania grants in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Certain State Law Claims.

The present case is a hybrid collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and Rule 23 class action brought under the
laws of 14 states by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves
and other similarly situated individuals against FedEx for its
alleged failure to pay requisite overtime compensation to the
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs assert that they were employed by FedEx through
intermediary employers to perform delivery services on FedEx's
behalf. They further assert that FedEx has violated the FLSA by not
paying overtime compensation to them for all hours worked over 40
each week.

In its Motion to Dismiss, FedEx moves to dismiss seven of the state
law claims (Counts 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12) set forth in the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Respectively, these Counts assert claims
for unpaid overtime compensation under the laws of Connecticut,
Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania.
FedEx asserts that each of these claims fails as a matter of law
because the Named Plaintiffs asserting these claims are not
entitled to overtime pay under the laws of their respective home
states because the state statutes at issue expressly exempt the
Plaintiffs or FedEx from the state's overtime requirements. FedEx
argues that, because the plain language of the state statutes at
issue precludes Counts 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12, amendment would be
futile, and dismissal should be with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs oppose the Motion to Dismiss. They assert that the
Motion to Dismiss should be denied for two reasons: "(1) the
remedial wage statutes at issue should be construed broadly in
favor of coverage, particularly at the pleading stage; and (2)
their state law claims are properly pled in the alternative to
their FLSA claims."

By way of Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Aug. 12, 2021, the
Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint. The Plaintiffs then filed the Complaint on Aug. 24,
2021. FedEx filed the Motion to Dismiss, along with a Brief in
Support on Sept. 7, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed a Brief in
Opposition on Sept. 28, 2021, and FedEx filed a Reply on Oct. 5,
2021.

FedEx asserts that the Plaintiffs cannot state a claim under either
Hawaii or Michigan law (Counts 4 and 8) because neither state's
overtime requirements apply to employees or employers covered by
the FLSA. It further asserts that the Plaintiffs' claims under the
laws of Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, and
Pennsylvania (Counts 3, 5, 7, 9, and 12) fail as a matter of law
because the "Plaintiffs, as delivery drivers engaged in interstate
commerce, are exempt from state-imposed overtime requirements under
each state's motor carrier exemption."

FedEx asserts that the Plaintiffs, in seeking unpaid overtime
compensation under the FLSA, rely on allegations that they drove
vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less, and that they are thus
entitled to invoke the Small Vehicle Exception to the FLSA's Motor
Carrier Act Exemption. It argues that such allegations are
irrelevant under the laws of Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland,
Minnesota, and Pennsylvania because each state's overtime exemption
applies to all drivers engaged in interstate commerce, regardless
of vehicle weight.

For their part, the Plaintiffs do not challenge the accuracy of the
quotation of these provisions, but instead argue that the Court
should construe these state laws broadly in favor of coverage. In
seeking relief under Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota
law, they allege that the Named Plaintiffs bringing such claims
were eligible to receive overtime compensation because they were
employed by FedEx, drove a vehicle weighing less than 10,001 pounds
during the relevant timeframe, and were not paid overtime
compensation. Clearly, the Plaintiffs intend to invoke the Small
Vehicle Exception in seeking damages for overtime compensation
against FedEx.

In opposing the Motion to Dismiss, they argue strenuously that
FedEx relies on state law exemptions that can only apply if they
are found to be FedEx's "employees" under federal law, and FedEx
cannot rely on such an argument at this stage because FedEx denies
that it was their employer. The Plaintiffs also assert that, "in
the event they are not found to be employees of FedEx under the
FLSA, they are well within their rights to recover under state law
protections in the alternative."

Judge Colville rejects these arguments. Initially, he opines that
FedEx is free (and the Court is required) to accept as true the
factual allegations set forth in the Complaint in the context of a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion. He rejects the Plaintiffs' assertion that
FedEx cannot argue that the Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of
law while also denying its status as an employer. Further, he finds
that the issue of whether FedEx was an employer under the FLSA need
not be resolved before the Court considers whether the Plaintiffs
have, as a matter of law, stated a claim under the laws of
Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota.

Moreover, while they argue that their claims are pled in the
alternative to their FLSA claim, the Plaintiffs provide no
substantive argument as to how they could succeed on their state
law claims against FedEx if they cannot prove that FedEx is an
employer under the FLSA. They provide the Court with no substantive
basis to conclude that they could possibly recover under the laws
of any state if their FLSA claim fails, and any assertion to the
contrary would contradict arguments they previously raised in
support of their Motion to Amend. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs
have not, and could not, plead their claims under the laws of
Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota in the alternative.

The Plaintiffs also argue that the state wage statutes at issue
should be construed broadly in favor of coverage, and that these
statutes should not be interpreted to provide fewer protections
than the FLSA. However, Judge Colville opines that the Plaintiffs
cite to no case law or other authority that would specifically
support their position, and even acknowledge that the cases cited
by FedEx "may ultimately answer the question regarding the
application of these state law exemptions if Plaintiffs are
determined to be employees of FedEx under federal law." Again, they
fail to provide any persuasive argument as to why the issue of
FedEx's employer status must be resolved before the Court can look
to the legal issue of whether these state law exemptions bar their
state law claims. They essentially offer no opposition to FedEx's
arguments that these exemptions apply, and that the weights of the
vehicles driven by them are irrelevant under the wage laws of
Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota. Accordingly, Judge
Colville will grant the Motion to Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs'
claims under these laws.

Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that their claim under Michigan law
should survive because it is also pled in the alternative, and that
it may be viable should Plaintiffs prove unsuccessful under the
FLSA. Judge Colville again notes that any argument that any state
law claim was brought in the alternative to their FLSA claim is
directly contrary to previous assertions set forth in support of
their Motion to Amend. Further, the Plaintiffs acknowledge that
Michigan's Workforce Opportunity Wage Act exempts "'an employer
that is subject to' the FLSA." There is no dispute that FedEx
could, potentially, be found to be an employer in the case that is
subject to the FLSA, even if it has not yet been established in
this case that FedEx was the Plaintiffs' employer. The Plaintiffs
again fail to offer any substantive argument as to how they could
fail in establishing that FedEx was an employer under the FLSA, and
somehow succeed in establishing that FedEx was an employer under
Michigan law. Judge Colville will dismiss the Plaintiffs' Michigan
state law claim.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Colville grants FedEx's Motion to
Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' claims under the laws of Connecticut,
Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, and Michigan. He finds that
amendment of these claims would be futile, and, given the stage of
this litigation, inequitable, especially where the Plaintiffs were
put on notice (in FedEx's opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Amend) of FedEx's argument prior to the filing of the Complaint.
Accordingly, Judge Colville dismisses Counts 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9 of
the Complaint with prejudice.

Because Named Plaintiff Dezrae Kauhane, who brought a claim under
Hawaii law, is no longer a party to this action, Judge Colville
declines to address the Motion to Dismiss to the extent that it
asserts that the Plaintiffs' claim under Hawaii law (Count 4)
should be dismissed. Because the Court has granted summary judgment
in FedEx's favor on the individual claims brought by Named
Plaintiff Douglas Russell, who brought a claim under Pennsylvania
law, he likewise declines to address the Motion to Dismiss to the
extent that it asserts that the Plaintiffs' claim under
Pennsylvania law (Count 12) should be dismissed. An appropriate
Order of Court follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n7fz86f from Leagle.com.


FINDLAY'S TALL: Freeland Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Eric Freeland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FINDLAY'S TALL TIMBERS DISTRIBUTION CENTER, LLC d/b/a/
OHIO LOGISTICS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00741 (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2022),
is brought seeking to recover underpayment caused by untimely wage
payments and other damages for Plaintiff in violation the New York
Labor Law.

Despite being manual workers, the Defendant has failed to properly
pay the Plaintiff their wages within seven calendar days after the
end of the week in which these wages were earned. In this regard,
the Defendant has failed to provide timely wages to the Plaintiff.
The Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff with an accurate
statement of wages pursuant to NYLL, as the paystubs provided
failed to notate the Plaintiff's correct overtime rate. The
Plaintiff relied on his paystubs to ensure that the Defendant paid
him the correct rate for his hours worked. Due to the Defendant's
failure to provide the correct overtime rate on the wage statements
provided to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff were misinformed about the
correct overtime rate they were entitled to receive, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by FTTDC as an Hourly Worker from in or
around April 2021 through April 2022.

FTTDC is a foreign business corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Hunter G Benharris, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 300-0375


FLIPPS MEDIA: Solomon Files Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flipps Media, Inc.
The case is styled as Detrina Solomon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Flipps Media, Inc. doing business as:
FITE doing business as: FITE TV, Case No. 2:22-cv-05508-JMA-JMW
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated Other Statutory Actions.

Flipps Media, Inc. doing business as Fite -- http://www.fite.tv/--
is an American digital video streaming service launched on May 20,
2012, that is dedicated to combat sports-related programming.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicomedes Sy Herrera, Esq.
          HERRERA KENNEDY LLP
          80 Pine Street, 33d Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (510) 422-4700
          Fax: (855) 969-2050
          Email: NHerrera@HerreraKennedy.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 577-3977
          Email: ccormier@burnscharest.com

FREESTYLE SOLUTIONS: Warren Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freestyle Solutions,
Inc. The case is styled as Dicky Warren, Carl Jung, individually
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situatedv.
Clinivate, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-05533-KM-MAH (D.N.J., Sept. 13,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Freestyle -- https://www.freestylesolutions.com/ -- offers order &
inventory management software - a comprehensive solution to
automate inventory & order lifecycles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vicki Maniatis, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Fax: (212) 868-1229
          Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com


FSSI INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FSSI, Inc. The case
is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. FSSI, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08386 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 30, 2022).

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

The FSSI is a social investment organization committed to support
the development of sustainable communities through social
entrepreneurship.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FULTON GARDENS POST: Jackson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fulton Gardens Post
Acute, LLC. The case is styled as Derek Jackson, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fulton Gardens Post
Acute, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0008609 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., Sept. 27, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

Fulton Gardens Post Acute -- https://fultongardenspostacute.com/ --
is a skilled nursing and rehabilitation facility.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com


FURMAN UNIVERSITY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Furman University.
The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Furman University, Case No.
1:22-cv-08396 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2022).

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

Furman University -- https://www.furman.edu/ -- is a prestigious
private liberal arts and sciences university with a campus
internationally recognized for its beauty.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


GAMETABLES4LESS LLC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gametables4less, LLC.
The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Gametables4less, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-08361 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2022).

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

Gametables4less -- https://www.gametables4less.com/ -- offers a
massive selection of high-quality and affordable game tables for
sale along with air hockey, shuffleboard, foosball, arcade machines
and much more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GARRISON PROPERTY: Lemke Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garrison Property and
Casualty Insurance Company. The case is styled as Melanie Lemke,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No.
1:22-cv-01334-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill., Sept. 28, 2022).

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

Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Co. operates as an insurance
company. The Company provides property and casualty insurance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (404) 797-9696
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


GC SERVICES: Roger Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The case is styled as Pablo Roger, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GC Services Limited
Partnership, Case No. 1:22-cv-23192-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 30,
2022).

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

GC Services -- https://www.gcserv.com/ -- is one of the industry's
largest privately owned business process outsourcing (BPO)
solutions providers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Hit With $102.6MM Jury Verdict in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a rare class action trial verdict, a California federal jury on
Oct. 4 found that the nation's largest automobile manufacturer hid
an engine defect that resulted in excessive oil consumption,
leading to engine damage, stalling, and premature breakdown in tens
of thousands of General Motors's (NYSE: GM) 5.3-liter SUVs and
light trucks. The jury returned a $102.6 million verdict against GM
in a class action lawsuit led by national plaintiffs' trial firm,
DiCello Levitt, on behalf of owners and lessees of GM trucks and
SUVs sold from 2011-2014 in California, North Carolina, and Idaho,
which contained the company's Generation IV Vortec 5300 LC9 engine.
The case was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Filed in late 2016, the lawsuit claimed that internal GM documents
showed that the company was quickly alerted to a defect in the
engine's piston rings that resulted in the vehicles consuming too
much oil. The excess oil infiltrated parts of the engine where it
didn't belong, resulting in damage and, eventually, premature
engine breakdown and failure. By 2010, GM recommended to its
dealers that they clean the pistons of the vehicles in question.
That solution was ineffective and company engineers and other
employees recommended that the piston ring design be changed. GM
made other ineffective engine design changes in 2011, but the oil
consumption issues persisted until GM finally discontinued
production of the engine following the 2014 model year.

"I am exceptionally proud of our trial team for its tireless
preparation and aggressive advocacy is this case," said Christopher
Stombaugh, lead trial counsel in the case and a partner at DiCello
Levitt. "I am also thankful for the courage of the jury, which did
the right thing in holding GM responsible for its deceit and
half-hearted efforts to address its problems. None of this would
have been possible without the assistance of our co-lead trial
counsel at Beasley Allen and our additional co-counsel Jennie
Anderson of Andrus Anderson LLP, and Anthony Garcia of AG Law. I
thank them for their contributions and commitment to our trial
strategy."

The jury found that GM violated the breach of implied warranty of
merchantability to California plaintiffs, the breach of implied
warranty of merchantability to North Carolina vehicle owners, and
breached the provisions of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. It
awarded each of the 38,000 class members $2,700, bringing total
damages to $102.6 million.

"Very few class action cases ever go to trial, let alone to
verdict," said Adam Levitt, co-trial counsel in the matter and a
DiCello Levitt founding partner. "This one did and we did it. As a
'trial first' law firm, our responsibility is to obtain the
best-possible results for our clients and the classes that we
represent. It's extremely gratifying to see the jury respond so
favorably to our trial team's relentless preparation and trial
presentation."

The DiCello Levitt trial team members included Levitt, Stombaugh,
John Tangren, Dan Ferri, Mark Abramowitz, and Joseph Frate.

The case is Raul Siqueiros, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No.
3:16-cv-07244, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. A copy of the jury verdict is available upon
request, and members of the DiCello Levitt trial team are available
for interviews.

About DiCello Levitt
At DiCello Levitt, we're dedicated to achieving justice for our
clients through class action, business-to-business, public client,
whistleblower, personal injury, and mass tort litigation. Our
lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win
cases -- whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise -- for people
who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained
significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect
their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our
reputations -- and our capital -- on the line for our clients.

About DiCello Levitt's Trial Advocacy Center
One of our firm's proudest innovations is the DiCello Levitt Trial
Advocacy Center. Litigation firms are common in the U.S. -- but
DiCello Levitt is a trial firm. We approach client cases from a
trial-first perspective, identifying and analyzing critical issues
at all stages of a litigation, enabling us to fine-tune our
approach, mobilize our team, engage the right resources, and
dictate the path to victory in each of our cases. We created the
Trial Advocacy Center to address how the digital universe has
reshaped the way people process information, how today's jurors
make decisions, and what truly motivates them at their core. Using
a proprietary system, we survey, test, intuit, and then re-test to
grasp the nuances of a jury's mindset; pursuing the truth with a
scientific focus on what persuades, what connects, and what wins.

For more, visit our website: https://dicellolevitt.com/ [GN]

GENERAL MOTORS: Oklahoma Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Hampton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DURWIN HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-250-RAW (E.D. Okla.), Judge Ronald A.
White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

The class action lawsuit is about allegedly defective automobile
engines. Mr. Hampton asserts five causes of action: (1) breach of
express warranty; (2) breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability; (3) fraudulent concealment; (4) violations of the
Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act; and (5) unjust enrichment.

Beginning in 2006, General Motors Corp. ("Old GM") installed the
Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8 Vortex 5300 LC9 engine in many of its
most popular vehicles. Then in 2009, Old GM filed for protection
under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Defendant
General Motors, LLC ("GM"), ultimately acquired the assets of Old
GM, emerged from the bankruptcy proceeding, and continued
manufacturing vehicles equipped with Generation IV Engines. These
engines consume an improperly high quantity of oil that far exceeds
industry standards for reasonable oil consumption ("Oil Consumption
Defect"). The Oil Consumption Defect is primarily caused by
defective piston rings. These rings, which should prevent oil from
traveling into the combustion chamber, wear out prematurely and
lose sealing capacity. The excessive oil consumption caused by the
Oil Consumption Defect results in low oil levels, insufficient
lubricity levels, and internal engine component damage.

GM has known of the Oil Consumption Defect and resulting engine
damage since 2008. Dating back to model year 2007 vehicles, GM
received an extraordinary number of customer complaints about
excessive oil consumption in vehicles with Generation IV Engines.
Its engineers began investigating the Oil Consumption Defect in at
least 2008, when it was determined the piston rings were
prematurely failing and causing excessive oil consumption. On Jan.
8, 2010, the GM investigative team produced its "executive report"
on oil consumption in Generation IV Engines. Then beginning in
2010, GM issued technical service bulletins to its dealers which
explicitly addressed the issue of oil consumption in Generation IV
Engines. Finally, in 2012, it generated a "problem investigation
report" regarding oil consumption in Generation IV Engines. Despite
this knowledge, however, GM continued selling vehicles containing
the defective engines.

At all times relevant to this action, GM knowingly omitted and/or
concealed the Oil Consumption Defect. It did not disclose the Oil
Consumption Defect to Mr. Hampton or other consumers at or prior to
the time of sale. Instead, it extensively advertised the
performance benefits of Generation IV Engines, informing customers
such engines were dependable, long-lasting, and of the highest
quality. Then beginning with certain model year 2014 vehicles, GM
discontinued use of the Generation IV Engines and began installing
materially redesigned Generation V Vortec 5300 engines.

Mr. Hampton purchased a 2013 GMC Sierra equipped with a Generation
IV Engine on Feb. 26, 2013. When the vehicle had approximately
35,000 miles on the odometer, Mr. Hampton first noticed it was
consuming excessive amounts of oil. He has consistently had to add
two quarts of oil in between regular oil changes and has
experienced a rattling noise in the engine. Prior to purchasing the
vehicle, Mr. Hampton spoke with a sales representative and saw
commercials which promoted the vehicle's reliability and
durability. GM, however, did not disclose the Oil Consumption
Defect before or at the time of sale. Had GM done so, Mr. Hampton
would not have purchased the vehicle or would have paid less for
it.

The matter comes before the court on GM's Motion to Dismiss all of
Mr. Hampton's claims. It first argues he lacks standing and then
raises substantive challenges to the five causes of action.

As to standing, GM asserts Mr. Hampton lacks Article III standing
because he has not alleged a sufficiently concrete and
particularized injury. Standing is conferred on a plaintiff where
three elements are present: (1) the plaintiff has suffered an
injury in fact; (2) there is a causal connection between the injury
and the complained-of conduct; and (3) it is likely that the injury
will be redressed by a favorable decision.

Judge White holds that Mr. Hampton has standing to assert his
claims. First, he suffered an injury in fact when he paid for a
vehicle that required oil levels dramatically higher than a
reasonable consumer would expect. Second, there is a sufficient
causal connection between the injury (monetary harm) and the
complained-of conduct (sale of a defective product). Finally, it is
likely that a favorable decision will redress the injury. Mr.
Hampton's injury is fully redressable by monetary damages.
Consequently, he has standing to assert his claims.

As to express warranty, GM asserts Mr. Hampton failed to state a
claim for breach of express warranty because its express warranty
does not cover the defect at issue. The parties dispute whether the
phrase "related to materials or workmanship" modifies the phrase
"any vehicle defect" or whether it modifies the phrase "or other
normal characteristics of the vehicle."

According to GM, the warranty should be interpreted as: "The
warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect related to
materials or workmanship, but not slight noise, vibrations, or
other normal characteristics of the vehicle." According to Mr.
Hampton, conversely, the warranty should be interpreted as: "The
warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect, but not if
the defect is slight noise, vibration, or another normal
characteristic of the vehicle related to materials or workmanship."
GM interprets the warranty as applying only if the defect is
related to materials or workmanship (excluding the enumerated
exceptions), whereas Mr. Hampton interprets the warranty as
applying to any vehicle defect (excluding the enumerated
exceptions).

Judge White declines to adopt GM's narrow reading. As alleged in
the Complaint, the GM warranty is applicable to any vehicle defect,
but not if the defect is slight noise, vibration, or another normal
characteristic of the vehicle related to materials or workmanship.
Pursuant to this warranty, GM agreed it would repair or replace
covered vehicle defects during the warranty period.

Mr. Hampton has stated a claim for breach of express warranty. He
alleged the warranty formed the basis of the bargain between
himself and GM and that the Oil Consumption Defect is a covered
vehicle defect. He further alleged that GM breached the warranty by
failing and/or refusing to repair the Oil Consumption Defect.
Finally, he alleges financial loss as a result of this breach. Mr.
Hampton has stated a claim for breach of express warranty.

As to implied warranty, GM asserts the claim for breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability should be dismissed for two
reasons, arguing that the claim (1) is untimely and (2) fails on
the merits.

Judge White declines to dismiss the implied warranty claim as
untimely. Mr. Hampton expressly alleges that GM was aware of the
Oil Consumption Defect and concealed it from him. In 2010, the GM
investigative team produced its "executive report" on oil
consumption in Generation IV Engines, and it began issuing
technical service bulletins to its dealers which explicitly
addressed the issue of oil consumption in Generation IV Engines. It
did not reveal this information to consumers. Instead, it concealed
it. Mr. Hampton has pled a set of facts which, if taken as true,
provide him a means of tolling the operative statute of limitations
on the grounds of fraudulent concealment.

Judge White finds that Mr. Hampton alleges his vehicle requires an
improperly high quantity of oil that far exceeds industry standards
for reasonable consumption. He further alleges he has consistently
been required to add two quarts of oil to his vehicle in between
regular oil changes. As alleged, his vehicle does not operate for
its ordinary purpose but instead requires additional, out of the
ordinary, maintenance. As such, Mr. Hampton has stated a claim for
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

As to fraudulent concealment, GM asserts the claim for fraudulent
concealment should be dismissed for two reasons, arguing that the
claim (1) does not satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and (2) fails on its merits.

Judge White holds that Mr. Hampton pled fraud with sufficient
particularity. He alleged that prior to purchasing the vehicle in
2013, he spoke with a sales representative at Dunn County Chevrolet
in Eufaula, Oklahoma, and saw commercials which promoted the
vehicle's reliability and durability. He further alleged that GM
has known of the Oil Consumption Defect and resulting engine damage
since 2008 but did not disclose it prior to the time of sale. GM
has fair notice of Mr. Hampton's claims and the factual grounds on
which they are based. Mr. Hampton has satisfied the heightened
pleading standard in Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

Judge White further holds that Mr. Hampton alleges he spoke about
the vehicle with a sales representative at Dunn County Chevrolet at
a time when GM had knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect. By
disclosing some information about the vehicle, GM arguably had a
duty to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect. Mr. Hampton has stated
a claim for fraudulent concealment.

As to Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 15,
Section 751 et seq. ("OCPA"), to succeed in a private right of
action under the OCPA, a plaintiff must establish: (1) that the
defendant engaged in an "unlawful practice"; (2) that the
challenged practice occurred in the course of defendant's business;
(3) that the plaintiff, as a consumer, suffered an injury in fact;
and (4) that the challenged practice caused the plaintiff's injury,
citing Patterson v. Beall, 2000 OK 92, paragraph 30, 19 P.3d 839,
846.

Judge White finds that Mr. Hampton sufficiently pled all elements.
First, GM engaged in an unlawful practice. Second, the manufacture
and sale of vehicles are indisputably in the course of GM's
business. Third, Mr. Hampton suffered harm in the form of financial
injury. And finally, GM's failure to disclose the Oil Consumption
Defect caused that injury. Had GM disclosed the Oil Consumption
Defect, Mr. Hampton would not have purchased the vehicle or would
have paid less for it.

GM also argues Mr. Hampton failed to allege it had knowledge of the
Oil Consumption Defect at the time of the sale. As noted, however,
the "executive report" and technical service bulletins regarding
the Oil Consumption Defect were issued in 2010, and Mr. Hampton
purchased his vehicle in 2013. He has stated a claim for violation
of the OCPA.

Lastly, as to unjust enrichment, GM asserts Mr. Hampton failed to
state a claim for unjust enrichment because it is foreclosed by the
claim for breach of express warranty. It is true that a party
cannot recover on a claim for unjust enrichment when it has an
adequate remedy at law.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2), however, "a party may set out 2 or
more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or
hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate
ones." Mr. Hampton may allege a valid warranty exists and
alternatively pursue unjust enrichment should the warranty claim
fail. Indeed, GM has argued here the warranty is inapplicable to
the defect Mr. Hampton identified. While Mr. Hampton cannot recover
under both theories, he is entitled to assert them.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge White denies GM's Motion to
Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4aeehfsp from Leagle.com.


GOOGLE LLC: Sued for Unlawfully Retaining Subscribers' Information
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Google
unlawfully retains the video rental history and personally
identifiable information of Google Play subscribers, a new class
action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Burke Minahan claims Google violates Minnesota law by
allegedly keeping and maintaining digital records of information
such as Google Play subscribers' names, addresses and credit card
information.

Minahan argues Google also violates Minnesota law by allegedly
maintaining a record of its Google Play subscribers' video rental
histories.

Minnesota law requires Google to destroy any personally
identifiable information it collects "as soon as practicable but no
later than one year from the date the information is no longer
necessary for the purpose for which it was collected," according to
the Google class action.

Google class action alleges company 'indefinitely' retains Google
Play subscribers' personally identifiable information
Google not only does not destroy its Google Play subscribers'
personally identifiable information as soon as practicable but
rather stores it "indefinitely," the Google Play lawsuit states.

"Google has knowingly retained the personally identifiable
information, including sensitive video rental histories, of
thousands of Minnesota consumers in violation of Minnesota law,"
the Google class action states.

Minahan wants to represent a class of Minnesota residents who have
a Google account and used one of its video-streaming services to
rent a video.

He demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive
relief along with an award of statutory damages for himself and all
class members.

In related Google news, last month, Google agreed to pay $100
million to resolve claims the company violated the privacy of its
users by allegedly collecting and storing images of people's faces
in order to build a facial template database.

The plaintiff is represented by Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III of
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC.

The Google Play lawsuit is Minahan v. Google, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-05652, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. [GN]

HOLLYWOOD MEGA: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hollywood Mega, Inc.
The case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Hollywood Mega, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08239 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2022).

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

Hollywood Mega, Inc. -- https://hollywoodmegastore.com/ -- is a
gift shop in Los Angeles, California.[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

HOLY SEE: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Blecher's Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIK BLECHER, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE HOLY SEE,
Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-3545 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge J. Paul
Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

The Plaintiffs, 30 alleged victims of childhood clergy sexual
abuse, bring a putative class action against the Defendant, seeking
money damages for negligence on the ground that it mandated a
policy of secrecy for its bishops and dioceses in response to
allegations and reports of child sexual abuse by Roman Catholic
clergy.

The Plaintiffs allege abuse in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s
by local priests or deacons of the Archdiocese of New York, the
Diocese of Brooklyn, the Diocese of Rockville Centre, the Diocese
of Syracuse, and the Diocese of Ogdensburg. The Archdiocese of New
York and the Dioceses of Brooklyn, Rockville Centre, Syracuse, and
Ogdensburg (collectively "the New York Corporations") were all
separate corporations organized and existing under New York law
during the relevant time periods.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Holy See had a "secrecy policy," set
forth in a document titled Crimen sollicitationis, that "mandated
that the Bishop follow a specific course of action in response to
an allegation of child sexual abuse." They claim that the Holy See
"knew or should have known that its strict secrecy policy would
result in children in contact with Catholic clergy being sexually
abused." Based on these allegations, each Plaintiff advances a
single negligence claim predicated on the failure to warn children
and parents of the dangers generally posed by "Catholic clergy" and
the failure to report sex abusers to law enforcement and others.

The Holy See moves to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act ("FSIA"), for lack of standing, for failure to state a claim,
and for improper venue as to the claims of 19 named Plaintiffs.

Judge Oetken explains that foreign states are presumptively immune
from the jurisdiction of United States courts. A foreign state is
subject to the jurisdiction of a U.S. court only if one of the
FSIA's enumerated exceptions applies. The Plaintiffs allege that 28
U.S.C. Section 1605(a)(5) (the "Tortious Act Exception") applies.

The Tortious Act Exception applies to claims "in which money
damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or
death," for "the tortious act or omission of any official or
employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his
office or employment," if the act or omission and injury occurred
in the United States. There is, however, an exclusion to the
Tortious Act Exception when the tortious act either (1) arose out
of misrepresentation or deceit or (2) involved the exercise or
performance of a discretionary function.

The Holy See first argues that the Tortious Act Exception does not
apply because any tortious conduct was committed by the New York
Corporations, which are separate legal entities, and it cannot
apply to alleged tortious conduct by "agents" of the Holy See
because the language of the exception refers only to "officials"
and "employees," not to "agents." The Plaintiffs dispute that the
case is premised on the tortious acts of independent corporations,
and argue, in the alternative, that the amended complaint includes
sufficient factual allegations to overcome the presumption set out
by the Supreme Court in First Nat. City Bank v. Banco Para El
Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 624-28 (1983) ("Bancec"),
that instrumentalities of a foreign state have separate juridicial
statuses.

Judge Oetken is persuaded by the reasoning in Doe v. Holy See, No.
CV 02-430-MO, 2011 WL 1541275, at *4 (D. Or. Apr. 21, 2011), and
Robles v. Holy See, No. 20-CV-2106 (VEC), 2021 WL 5999337, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2021), two cases similar to this one, that the
Plaintiffs have not overcome the Bancec presumption. In Doe, the
Ninth Circuit held that a complaint against the Holy See alleging
sexual abuse by an American priest failed to allege the level of
control necessary to overcome the Bancec presumption. There, the
"complaint did not allege day-to-day, routine involvement of the
Holy See in the affairs of the" presumed separate entities. The
Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Doe by arguing that the amended
complaint makes factual allegations "significantly more developed
and substantial than those in Doe," pointing to several paragraphs
in the complaint.

Judge Oetken disagrees. As in Robles, the paragraphs to which the
Plaintiffs point contain only conclusory allegations that the Holy
See exercised control over American bishops and their dioceses.
Such conclusory allegations are insufficient under the Iqbal
standard.

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs argue that common law agency
principles should apply to overcome Bancec, citing several
out-of-Circuit cases. But, as the Holy See notes, the Tortious Act
Exception's plain language extends only to tortious conduct either
by the "foreign state" or its "official or employee." Because the
FSIA includes the actions of 'an agent' of a foreign state as the
basis for jurisdiction over the foreign state, the Court must
presume that Congress intentionally omitted 'agent' from the
section of the statute that establishes the Tortious Act Exception.
The Plaintiffs fail to explain why the Court should hold to the
contrary.

The Plaintiffs contend that the amended complaint alleges that the
bishops, within the structure of the Roman Catholic Church, are
themselves employees or officials of the Holy See, committing
tortious acts through mandatory duties imposed by the Holy See. In
other words, their theory is that the Holy See itself employed the
bishops under the New York state law definition of an employee. The
Holy See disagrees, arguing that under the doctrine of limited
liability, a bishop must be presumed to act on behalf of his
diocese, not on behalf of the Holy See. It e also argues that
federal common law applies and that under either federal common law
or New York law, the amended complaint's employment allegations are
insufficient as a matter of law.

Judge Oetken concludes that the doctrine of limited liability does
not categorically bar the bishops from being employees of the Holy
See and that under New York law, the exception to the FSIA for tort
liability based on the actions of an employee provides jurisdiction
for claims of negligence against the Holy See at this stage of the
analysis. First, though a "close call," the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged that the bishops are Holy See employees.
Second, the amended complaint alleges facts demonstrating a right
of control consistent with New York law that are sufficient to
satisfy the plausibility standard for pleading. Further, if a
question of fact as to employment exists, dismissal at this stage
is improper.

Third, the amended complaint contains ample well-pleaded
allegations of alleged sexual abuse traceable to the alleged
negligence of supervising clergy and the Archbishop. Because the
complaint adequately alleges that the bishops are Holy See
employees acting within the scope of their employment, the
Plaintiffs have satisfied the elements of the Tortious Act
Exception. Fourth, any alleged decision by Holy See employees
regarding whether to warn or report falls within the Discretionary
Function Exclusion. As a result, Section 1605(a)(5)(A) precludes
subject matter jurisdiction under the Tortious Act Exception to the
FSIA.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Oetken grants the motion to
dismiss, and dismisses the amended complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at Docket
Numbers 43 (granted) and 61 (denied as moot).

The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of the Holy
See and to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yv48cfh8 from Leagle.com.


HOLYOKE, MA: Attorney Reacts to Dismissal of COVID-19 Outbreak Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Donoghue and Ryan Trowbridge, writing for Western Mass News,
reports that there are feelings of disappointment after a judge
dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed by employees of the Holyoke
Soldiers' Home, tied to the deadly COVID-19 outbreak that claimed
the lives of dozens of veterans.

Approximately 80 veterans were killed in a COVID-19 outbreak at the
Holyoke Soldiers' Home during the peak of the pandemic and by the
bedside of those dying men and women were employees of the home.
One employee, Kwesi Ablordeppey, recalled what he experienced
during that time.

"You see so many people dying in front of you. You're putting them
in a body bag, taking them to a refrigerator," Ablordeppey said.

He told Western Mass News that he went through emotional stress
during that time and saw things he can't unsee. He filed a lawsuit
against four former employees of the home - former Holyoke
Soldiers' Home Superintendent Bennett Walsh, former medical
director Dr. David Clinton, former chief nursing officer Vanessa
Lauziere, and former assistant nursing manager Celeste Surreira.
However, on Oct. 3, a federal judge in Springfield filed an opinion
and dismissed the case.

"I'm really disappointed, really disappointed…What were they
thinking? What were they thinking and what did they think would
happen to the staff who were taking care of the veterans?"
Ablordeppey added.

Ablordeppey's attorney, Leonard Kesten, reacts to the judge's
order, which claims Ablordeppey did not experience harm because he
never got COVID-19, among other reasons.

"He's suggesting that since they did not create COVID, they can't
be liable, but we say they made it much worse and it's the same
thing," Kesten noted.

We spoke with a former employee, who worked at the home during the
outbreak.

"We followed what we they told us to do and unknowingly played a
part in so many deaths," said Kelley Rathman.

She agreed with Ablordeppey in that what they saw and went through,
no one should have to endure.

"Everybody went through utter hell and we don't deserve to just be
tossed aside like nothing ever happened," Rathman added.

Kesten said he will be filing an appeal. He's also considering
moving forward with other employees' cases. [GN]

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Over 3,600 People to Join Defective Vehicles' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jarrod Clay, writing for WSYX, reports that a law firm said more
than 3,600 people have reached out to them about joining a proposed
class action lawsuit against Hyundai for what it calls defects in
Kias and Hyundais that make the cars targets for theft.

Ohio law firms Payne Law LLC and The Harrington Firm are leading
the charge in the Buckeye state, but have asked the federal court
to consolidate cases from other states to a single judge in the
Northern District of Ohio.

On Oct. 4, Payne Law LLC said 3,647 people have reached out about
joining the suit. The firm said this number includes both people
whose vehicles have the alleged defect and those whose vehicles
have been stolen.

The number of thefts reported stands at 1,209 as of Oct. 4 but the
firm said that number grows daily.

Their lawsuit alleges a defect in the cars, claiming they don't
have immobilizers, making it easier to steal.

"Our lawsuit is for Ohio residents. People who are in Ohio who have
purchased their vehicles out of state or people who have leased
their vehicles and are Ohio residents or Ohio residents that have
purchased in the state, that is who we are seeking to protect,"
Attorney Melissa Payne with Payne Law, LLC previously told WSYX.

For more information on the class action lawsuit, visit Payne Law
LLC or The Harrington Firm. [GN]

INTEGRITY MARKETING: Nichols Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integrity Marketing
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Terri Nichols, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Integrity Marketing
Group, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-05560-JD (N.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2022).

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

Integrity -- https://www.integritymarketing.com/ -- is a
one-of-a-kind insurtech company, using data, technology and a human
touch to deliver a better insurance experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Fax: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com


JACKSON, MS: Police Dept. Agrees to Limit Roadblocks After Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Madeleine Nolan at wapt.com reports that the Jackson Police
Department has agreed to pull back on aggressive roadblocks in
response to a lawsuit.

The Mississippi Center for Justice and the MacArthur Justice Center
announced a settlement with JPD Chief James Davis addressing the
department's roadblock policy known as "Ticket, Arrest and Tow," or
TAT. The federal class-action lawsuit filed in February accused
Jackson officers of violating people's constitutional right to be
free of unreasonable search and seizure.

"I thought to myself when going home, 'What are they doing? Why are
they doing this?'" said South Jackson resident Timothy Holcomb.
"We're not criminals. We live in a poor neighborhood, that doesn't
make us criminals."

The lawsuit alleged that JPD used roadblocks in majority-Black and
low-income neighborhoods to catch suspects.

The settlement requires Jackson police to provide a hand-out with
information about towing and how to contact the Hinds County court
clerk about their ticket.

"(It also requires) a summary report that includes the reason the
roadblock was set up, where and what location, and at what time,
and the number of citations, arrests and searches made at that
roadblock," said Paloma Wu, deputy director of impact litigation
for the Mississippi Center for Justice.

For the next four years, the groups involved can monitor whether
JPD is complying.

"If they are not complying, we can give them the 30 days' notice to
cure, and if not, we can ask the court to get back involved to
enforce this agreement," Wu said. [GN]

JOHN MUIR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unlawful Billing Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed on Oct. 4 against John Muir Health
accuses the hospital of "unconscionable" billing practices after it
charged a Contra Costa County patient $6,095.70 for a routine drug
screening at an emergency department visit, according to attorneys
at Hagens Berman and the Law Office of Peter Fredman PC.

The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Contra Costa alleges that John Muir charges roughly
10,000% of the Medicare rate for the simple urine drug screening, a
service which has a corresponding Medicare reimbursement amount of
$62.14. In medical billing practice, 135%-140% of a Medicare
reimbursement allowance is considered reasonable.

The lawsuit alleges the hospital's billing practices are "unlawful,
unfair, and fraudulent."

The lawsuit accuses John Muir Health of unfair competition and
violation of consumer protection laws, as well as the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, and seeks repayment for a
proposed class of John Muir emergency department patients who were
allegedly overcharged.

"California law requires that our client and other patients of John
Muir emergency departments get the emergency care they need without
having to incur unreasonable and unaffordable bills," said Tom
Loeser, partner at Hagens Berman representing the proposed class of
John Muir patients. "There are laws in place to protect patients
from being charged an arm and a leg when they need medical
attention, and we believe John Muir Health has violated these
laws."

The law firms are seeking to hear from other patients who received
exorbitant bills for laboratory services after visiting a John Muir
Health Emergency Department. Patients of John Muir Health who
suspect they may have been overcharged can contact the attorneys
for more information.

"The fact that the hospital is charging $6,000 for a routine drug
screening is not disclosed in the John Muir billings," according to
attorney Peter Fredman. "If you received an exorbitant bill for lab
services at a John Muir Emergency Department visit, you should get
in touch with us," he advised.

Punishing Patient Charges

According to the lawsuit, just after midnight on June 14, 2022, the
plaintiff, Savannah Thompson, came to the John Muir's Walnut Creek
emergency department because she feared she may have accidentally
overdosed on an illicit drug. Ms. Thompson was in the emergency
department for less than three hours before staff sent her home.
Through her employer she had Kaiser health insurance, which paid
John Muir over $6,000 for the medical services John Muir rendered
to her that night.

Nevertheless, John Muir sent Ms. Thompson a bill seeking over
$7,000 in additional payments from her personally, the lawsuit
states. The charges included over $9,700 for so-called "Laboratory"
services related to blood and urine samples she gave that night. It
was only after Ms. Thompson requested an itemization that she
learned the charges included $6,095.70 for the urine drug screening
- a test that Medicare values at $62.14.

The charge is unconscionable, the lawsuit alleges.

"The nature of emergency care is that patients cannot shop for
services based on reasonable rates," said Fredman. "In this case,
John Muir never disclosed that it intended to charge Ms. Thompson
100 times the value for the procedure. California law protects
consumers in these situations."

Years of Overbilling

The lawsuit alleges that this is not an isolated incident.
According to data filed with the California Department of Health
Care Access and Information (HCAI), John Muir has been charging
over $5,300 for this urine drug screening since at least June of
2018, increasing the charge each year to reach the current rate of
$6,095.70. The lawsuit alleges that John Muir routinely administers
the urine drug screening to its emergency patients. According to
HCAI data, the lawsuit states, over 85,000 patients visited John
Muir emergency departments in 2021 alone.

"There are likely many other Bay Area residents who were charged
thousands of dollars for simple drug tests following emergency
department visits, and we intend to fight for their rights to
compensation," Loeser said. "John Muir had no right to set charges
so high for these simple urine tests and it had no right to seek
payment for these charges from emergency room patients when they
were not covered by insurance."

Attorneys say all John Muir Health locations are under
investigation, including Concord Medical Center, Walnut Creek
Medical Center, Behavioral Health Center, San Ramon Regional
Medical Center (Partner Hospital), Urgent Care Centers, Berkeley
Urgent Care Center, Brentwood Urgent Care Center, Concord Urgent
Care Center, San Ramon Urgent Care Center, Walnut Creek Urgent Care
Center and Aspen Surgery Center.

About Hagens Berman

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

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

KALITTA AIR: Odell Sues Over Unlawful COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. Odell, Jr.; Gregory Michael Pingot; Katie Ann Kotula;
Connie Joyce Jones; Patricia Lynn Verlander; Kevin Webber; Austin
Robert Isaac Hudnutt; Christian Tougas; Charles Christian Galton;
Travis Wayne Robertson; And Kevin McAllister, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KALITTA AIR, LLC,
and CONRAD ("CONNIE") KALITTA, Case No. 1:22-cv-12290-TLL-PTM (D.
Mich., Sept. 27, 2022), is brought to remedy the Defendant's
pattern of discrimination against employees entitled to religious
and/or Medical accommodations from the Defendant's mandate that its
employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine, as well as the Defendant's
retaliation against those who made requests for accommodations.

Rather than complying with its obligations under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Defendant responded by issuing generic denials for all
accommodation requests. While the company technically "approved"
the requests, the Defendant's so-called accommodation was to put
anyone who was not fully vaccinated on unpaid leave pending
termination: termination after three months if the employee
requested a religious accommodation and termination after one year
if the employee requested a medical accommodation. Per U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") Guidance, because a
variety of other accommodation options were available that would
not have caused an undue hardship, the Defendant's decision to
place exempted employees on unpaid leave was not a reasonable
accommodation, and provides strong evidence of the company's
discriminatory intent.

The Defendant would brook no exceptions to its mandate and would
consider no individual circumstances. Indeed, the company told its
employees that the "accommodation" for exempt employees would be
unpaid leave followed by termination before even a single request
could be made. Even employees who worked entirely remotely were
told they could not be accommodated and must take the vaccine or be
terminated. The Defendant offered a series of justifications for
its no-accommodation dictate, but those were continually rebutted
by the facts. What is left now is a series of post hoc
rationalizations for an ill-conceived policy that violates Title
VII and the ADA by allowing no accommodations.

Rather than follow the law, the Defendant imposed onto the
Plaintiffs the choice of either taking the COVID-19 vaccine--at the
expense of their religious beliefs and/or their health--or losing
their livelihoods. Such a decision is one that anti-discrimination
law was written to avoid as it has haunted not just Plaintiffs, but
others similarly situated who were forced to weigh their medical
and religious rights against the ability to provide for their
families. The threat of retaliation, along with the Defendant's
promised fake "accommodation," also dissuaded many from even
engaging in the Defendant's sham process. If the only thing gained
from applying for an exemption was worse treatment by the company
(followed by termination), one was better off not even attempting
to seek the false accommodation because doing so would just draw
the ire of the Defendant management. Federal employment law
prohibits such discriminatory treatment.

The Defendant has also continued its discrimination against the
unvaccinated employees entitled to an exemption by claiming that it
was "too late" for those who found out after the Defendant's own
internal deadline for applying for an accommodation to do so.
Through its actions, the Defendant violated Title VII and the ADA
by failing to engage in the interactive process whatsoever, failing
to provide reasonable accommodations that would have caused no
hardship whatsoever, and then by retaliating against employees who
engaged in protected activity, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs requested a religious or medical accommodation from
the Defendant's vaccine mandate but were denied.

Defendant Air, LLC is a Michigan Limited Liability Company with its
headquarters in Ypsilanti, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Sullivan, Esq., Esq.
          S|L LAW PLLC
          610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000
          Cedar Hill, TX 75104
          Phone: (469) 523-1351
          Facsimile: (469) 613-0891
          Email: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Allison R. Lucas, Esq.
          Aaron Siri, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq.
          Walker Moller, Esq.
          SIRI | GLIMSTAD
          220 West Congress Street, 2nd Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Phone: (313) 251-9161
          Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
          Email: alucas@sirillp.com
                 aaron@sirillp.com
                 ebrehm@sirillp.com
                 wmoller@sirillp.com


KARAVITES MANAGEMENT: Dodd Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Caroline Dodd, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. Karavites Management, Inc., Adyen
Inc., Case No. 2022CH07507 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of
Illinois on Sept. 8, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-04850 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract: Recovery/Enforcement for
Breach of Contract- Insurance.

Karavites Management is a company that operates in the Restaurants
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Colin Primo Buscarini, Esq.
          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          Jordan Ruvolo Frysinger, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW P.C.
          55 W. Wacker 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Email: cbuscarini@mcgpc.com
                 eturin@mcgpc.com
                 jfrysinger@mcgpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kevin Michael O'Hagan, Esq.
          Adam Casey Decker, Esq.
          O'HAGAN MEYER, LLC
          One E. Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 422-6120
          Email: kohagan@ohaganmeyer.com
                 adecker@ohaganmeyer.com


KENDALL COUNTY: Kniffin Sues Over Paramedics' Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHRIS KNIFFIN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KENDALL COUNTY VACATION RESORTS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-01073 (W.D. Tex., September 30,
2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
paramedic.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated paramedics consistently worked more than 40 hours per
workweek. However, the Defendant has improperly calculated their
overtime compensation due to its pay policy of paying them under
the fluctuation work week method of calculating overtime instead of
paying them time and one half of their regular rates of pay. As a
result of the Defendant's overtime policy, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated paramedics' overtime compensation shorted
thousands of dollars per year, the suit says.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint, for himself and for all other
similarly situated paramedics, to recover unpaid back wages,
liquidated damages, taxable costs and allowable expenses of this
action, reasonable attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as may be necessary and/or appropriate.

Kendall County Vacation Resorts, Inc. is a Texas County employing
paramedics, among other county employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
          409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
          Longview, TX 75601
          Tel: (512) 799-2048
          E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com

KEYBANK NATIONAL: Urciuoli Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Urciuoli and James Urciuoli, and Joseph Turowski, Jr. and
Teresa Turowski, on their individual behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, KEYCORP,
and OVERBY-SEAWELL COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01598-SO (N.D. Ohio,
Sept. 8, 2022), is brought arising from the Defendants' failure to
properly secure and safeguard the protected personally identifiable
information of its customers, which included names, mortgage
property addresses, mortgage account numbers and mortgage account
information, phone numbers, property information, the first eight
digits of Social Security numbers, and home insurance policy
numbers and home insurance information (collectively together,
"PII").

KeyBank, and its bank holding company, KeyCorp, are one of the
nation's largest banks and financial services companies, with
KeyCorp having consolidated total assets of approximately $186.3
billion as of December 31, 2021. As of December 31, 2021, KeyBank
had approximately 999 full-service retail banking branches and a
network of 1,317 ATMs in 15 states. The Plaintiffs each received a
notice letter from KeyBank dated August 26, 2022 (the "Notice
Letter"), indicating that on August 4, 2022, KeyBank was contacted
by OSC, regarding a "cybersecurity incident" affecting KeyBank's
clients (the "Data Breach"). OSC is a vendor that provides KeyBank
ongoing verification that KeyBank's residential mortgage clients
are maintaining property insurance.

The Notice Letter went onto say that OSC informed KeyBank that an
"unauthorized external party had gained remote access to [OSC's]
network and on July 5, 2022 acquired certain information from a
number of OSC clients, including certain personal information of
KeyBank clients." The Data Breach was a direct and proximate result
of OSC's flawed IT systems and KeyBank's entrustment of OSC with
that PII, which was left susceptible to attack by cybercriminals.
The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII, compromised by
cybercriminals in the Data Breach, is highly valuable because it is
readily useable to commit fraud and identity theft.

The type of PII disclosed, including social security numbers, can
be used to commit a host of fraud and identity theft, including but
not limited to medical fraud, fraudulent unemployment claims,
opening a new bank account, taking out a credit card, loan, or
mortgage, and committing income tax refund fraud, as the IRS and
several states require social security numbers to file a tax
return. The cybercriminals who obtained Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' PII can use this information to commit the aforementioned
crimes and can sell this information to other identity thieves who
will do the same.

The Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief requiring
Defendants to adopt reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard
the PII that remains in Defendants' custody in order to prevent
incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future.
Given that information relating to the Data Breach, including the
systems that were impacted, the Plaintiffs anticipate additional
support for their claims will be uncovered following a reasonable
opportunity for discovery, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs have given their PII to the Defendants.

KeyBank provides traditional banking and lending services to its
customers including originating and/or servicing residential
mortgages.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: gary@lcllp.com
                 jamisen@lcllp.com

               - and -

          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Amanda G. Fiorilla, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Email: clevis@lowey.com
                 afiorilla@lowey.com

               - and -

          Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          One Tower Bridge
          100 Front Street, Suite 520
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: (215) 399-4770
          Email: achristina@lowey.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 735-8600
          Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
          ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C.
          1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 351-0200
          Email: bob.cocco@phillyconsumerlaw.com


KIRKLAND'S INC: Miles Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the current
report dated July 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 30, 2022, that the company was named as a
defendant in a putative class action filed in May 2018 in the
Superior Court of California captioned Miles v. Kirkland's Stores,
Inc. The Court has stayed the entire case pending appeal.


The case has been removed to United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of
Miles and all other hourly Kirkland employees in California,
various wage and hour violations and seeks unpaid wages, statutory
and civil penalties, monetary damages, and injunctive relief.
Kirkland denies the material allegations in the complaint and
believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with
California law.

On March 22, 2022, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion
to certify in its entirety, and on May 26, 2022, the Ninth Circuit
granted the plaintiff's petition for permission to appeal.

Kirkland's, Inc. is a retailer of home furnishings based in
Tennessee.


KPS GLOBAL: Carrillo Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Juan David Arreola Carrillo, as an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KPS Global LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; Does 1 through 100 Case No.
22STCV19527 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for Central District of California on
Sept. 15, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-06631-PA-AS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Employment
Discrimination.

KPS Global LLC -- https://kpsglobal.com/ -- designs, manufactures,
and installs unparalleled insulated panels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fletcher W. H. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew John Rowbotham, Esq.
          Paul Keith Haines, Esq.
          Susan Jeannette Perez, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP APC
          2155 Campus Drive Suite 180
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Phone: (424) 292-2350
          Fax: (424) 292-2355
          Email: fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                 arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
                 phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                 sperez@haineslawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Hazel U. Poei, Esq.
          Martin Vigodnier, Esq.
          Yvonne Arvanitis Fossati, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Phone: (213) 689-0404
          Fax: (213) 689-0430
          Email: hazel.poei@jacksonlewis.com
                 martin.vigodnier@jacksonlewis.com
                 yvonne.fossati@jacksonlewis.com


KROGER CO: Judge Narrows Class Action Suit Over Cheese Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Radow at mondaq.com reports that a Wisconsin federal court
narrowed a proposed class action against Kroger Co. over its
"Private Selection" artificially flavored "smoked" Gouda cheese,
tossing claims for breach of warranty, fraud, and unjust
enrichment. The judge allowed the case to move forward under
Wisconsin's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, addressing the
plaintiff's claims that Kroger's "smoked" cheese product labeling
was deceptive, confusing, or misleading.

The class action was filed last year in Wisconsin by lead plaintiff
Stacey Castle who alleges Kroger falsely advertised the cheese
product. Castle claimed she purchased sliced "smoked" Gouda cheese,
described on the label as having a "distinctive smoky flavor," at
Kroger-owned supermarkets in 2021. She said she relied on the front
label's representations as a reference to the cheese having been
smoked "over hardwoods" and that its taste would reflect it "being
smoked on hardwoods." Kroger argues the ingredients list on the
back of the package discloses that the cheese contains "smoke
flavor."

Wisconsin law states that the packaging of a consumer commodity
must "clearly and conspicuously identify the commodity contained in
that package, and that the declaration may not be false, deceptive,
or misleading. Ingredients or components that are not present in
the commodity in substantial or significantly effective amounts may
not be featured in the declaration of identity." Castle alleged
that the flavoring components derived from smoking a cheese over
hardwoods are not present in the product at issue, and thus the
product's identity - "Smoked Gouda" - is false, deceptive, and
misleading.

While the cheese product had not been subject to any smoking, and
Castle claims its flavor is derived from a liquid smoke additive
and other flavor compounds, she contended she paid a premium price
for the cheese expecting that it would be subject to at least some
"actual smoking." Absent the product label's "smoked" references,
Castle argues, she would not have paid as much as she did for the
item.

The Court weighed the opinions in previous "smoked" cheese
disputes, considering the notion that "smoked" could refer either
to the flavor of the cheese, or to a process used to create such
flavor. It determined that Castle plausibly alleged that the
labeling was deceptive, confusing, or misleading because a
reasonable consumer could believe "smoked" referred to a process
rather than a flavor. Whether a consumer would be deceived is a
question of fact to be determined at trial.

Castle v. Kroger, 2022 WL 4776319 (E.D. Wis. 2022) [GN]

LANE BRYANT: Cole Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------
Shania Cole, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lane Bryant, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Lane Bryant,
Brands OPCO, LLC, an Ohio limited liabit company; Lane Bryant
#6243, Inc., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 22CV403105 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.,
Sept. 14, 2022), is brought to seek monetary relief against the
Defendants to recover, among other things, unpaid wages,
unreimbursed business expenses, benefits, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses.

The Plaintiff is informed and believes in their own alleges that
the Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff was
entitled to receive please minimum wages for compensation and that
they were not receiving at least minimum wages for work that was
required to be done off the clock. In violation of the California
Labor Code, the Plaintiff and class members were not paid at least
minimum wages for work done off the clock, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in California during
the Class Period.

The Defendants are a women's apparel and intimate specialty
retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
          Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW, APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          Email: bevin.pike@capstonelawyers.com
                 daniel.jonathan@capstonelawyers.com
                 trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com


LINCARE HOLDINGS: Miller Files Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lincare Holdings,
Inc. The case is styled as George Miller, Michael Mcauley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Lincare Holdings, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-02142-TPB-JSS (M.D. Fla.,
Sept. 14, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated Other Personal Property for Breach of
Contract.

Lincare Holdings Inc. -- https://www.lincare.com/ -- is a provider
of oxygen and other respiratory therapy services to patients in the
home.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. George, Esq.
          GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
          9897 Lake Worth Rd Ste 302
          Lake Worth, FL 33467-2377
          Phone: (561) 232-6002
          Fax: (888) 421-4529
          Email: dgeorge@4-Justice.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Phone: (281) 488-8854
          Fax: (501) 907-2556
          Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

               - and -

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
          102 Half Moon Bay Dr.
          Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
          Phone: (833) 346-3587
          Fax: (888) 421-4173
          Email: LFeldman@4-Justice.com

               - and -

          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 230-0800
          Fax: (619) 230-1874
          Email: sward@barrack.com
                 sbasser@barrack.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael S. Hooker, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
          100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 2000
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 472-7550
          Email: michael.hooker@phelps.com


LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Kontas Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LiveFree Emergency
Response, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Kontas, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LiveFree
Emergency Response, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-07019 (C.D. Cal., Sept.
28, 2022).

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

LiveFree Emergency Response is proud to offer the world's most
advanced system for mobile personal emergency response.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kolin Tang, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          19712 MacArthur Boulevard
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Phone: (866) 540-5505
          Fax: (866) 300-7367
          Email: kctang@millershah.com


LOEWE LLC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loewe LLC. The case
is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Loewe LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05754 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2022).

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

Loewe (stylized as LOEWE) -- https://www.loewe.com/int/en/home --
is a Spanish luxury fashion house specialising in leather goods,
clothing, perfumes and other fashion accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


LOWE'S HOME: Judge Applies "Viking River" Case to Dismiss PAGA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ogletree.com reports that in Johnson v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, a
decision issued on September 21, 2022, a federal judge in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an
order compelling arbitration of a plaintiff's individual claims
under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and dismissing the
remaining representative PAGA claims. In doing so, the court
provided a straightforward application of the June 2022 decision by
the Supreme Court of the United States in Viking River Cruises,
Inc. v. Moriana, which held that while an agreement may require the
arbitration of a PAGA claim on an individual basis, once the
individual claim is compelled to arbitration, the representative
PAGA claim should be dismissed for lack of standing.

PAGA, which was enacted in 2004, enables an employee to bring an
action to recover civil penalties for violations of the California
Labor Code suffered by the employee and other allegedly aggrieved
employees of the same employer. Prior to Viking River, California
courts had held that "categorical waivers of PAGA standing" were
not enforceable and that PAGA claims could not be split into
arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims.

In the Johnson case, U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley granted Lowe's
Home Centers, LLC's motion to compel arbitration with respect to
Maria Johnson's individual PAGA claim for the alleged failure to
provide paid sick leave or accurate wage statements. The most
relevant provisions of the arbitration agreement included the
following:

Any controversy between the plaintiff and her employer "arising out
of [the plaintiff's] employment . . . . shall be settled by binding
arbitration."

The plaintiff may bring claims "solely on an individual basis."

The plaintiff cannot bring claims on a representative basis under
PAGA.

"[I]f a court of competent jurisdiction finds the . . . .
Representative Action Waiver unenforceable for any reason, then the
unenforceable waiver provision shall be severable from [the]
Agreement, and any claims covered by any deemed unenforceable
waiver provision may only be litigated in a court of competent
jurisdiction, but the remainder of the agreement shall be binding
and enforceable."

Johnson argued that her waiver was an unenforceable "wholesale
waiver" of PAGA claims. The court disagreed, explaining:

The Court in Viking River explained that PAGA actions are
"representative" in two ways: "(1) PAGA actions are
'representative' in that they are brought by employees acting as
representatives-that is, as agents or proxies-of the State"; and
(2) "PAGA claims are also called 'representative' when they are
predicated on code violations sustained by other employees." 142 S.
Ct. at 1916. The Court further explained, "when the word
'representative' is used in the second way, it makes sense to
distinguish 'individual' PAGA claims, which are premised on Labor
Code violations actually sustained by the plaintiff, from
'representative' (or perhaps quasi-representative) PAGA claims
arising out of events involving other employees." Id. The Court
stated, "Iskanian's principal rule prohibits waivers of
'representative' PAGA claims in the first sense. That is, it
prevents parties from waiving representative standing to bring PAGA
claims in a judicial or arbitral forum." Id. The Court found that
Iskanian's principal rule "is not preempted by the [Federal
Arbitration Act]" and thus provisions that constitute "wholesale
waivers of PAGA claims" under that rule are invalid. Id. at
1924-25.

As such, Judge Nunley concluded that Johnson's waiver was not an
invalid "wholesale waiver" because it did not deny Johnson the
right to "bring[] a PAGA action on behalf of the State for
violations she suffered as an individual." Instead, Johnson's
waiver was an enforceable waiver that provided that "the employee
may not seek relief on behalf of any other parties in arbitration,
including but not limited to similar aggrieved employees."

The court also found that Johnson's severability provision was
"similar enough" to the corresponding provision at issue in Viking
River to "warrant the same result"-the enforcement of an agreement
to send individual PAGA claims to arbitration. As such, the court
compelled Johnson's individual PAGA claim to arbitration.

Finally, the court provided a straightforward application of Viking
River to conclude that once Johnson's individual PAGA claims were
compelled to arbitration, her non-individual PAGA claims should be
dismissed.

                         Key Takeaways

The Johnson decision highlights how under a straightforward
application of the Supreme Court's Viking River decision, properly
drafted arbitration agreements are a valid and enforceable means of
ensuring that a plaintiff's individual PAGA claims may be compelled
to arbitration and the nonindividual PAGA claims dismissed.
However, the California Supreme Court has granted review in a case
that might complicate the application of Viking River by California
courts. In the meantime, employers may want to consider
implementing arbitration agreements that provide the best possible
provisions to ensure that individual PAGA claims are subject to
arbitration and that nonindividual claims can be dismissed.

Ogletree Deakins' California Class Action and PAGA Practice Group
will continue to monitor developments regarding PAGA and the
enforcement of arbitration agreements and will provide updates on
the firm's Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution,
California, and Class Action blogs. Important information for
employers is also available via the firm's webinar and podcast
programs.

A version of this article first appeared on SHRM Online. [GN]

LUIGI'S PIZZERIA: Salazar Sues Over Entitled Compensations
----------------------------------------------------------
Omar Salazar, Paolo Garcia, and Vicente Juarez, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Luigi's
Pizzeria Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Luigi's Pizza, Raimondo Petretta
and Isaac Petretta, Case No. 1:22-cv-08277 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 28,
2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law, alleging that they are entitled to:
compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum
wage, unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which
they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and
liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, because the Defendants'
violations lacked a good faith basis.

The Defendants' failure to pay each Plaintiff an amount at least
equal to the New York City minimum wage in effect during relevant
time periods was willful, and lacked a good faith basis. The
Plaintiffs have each been paid in cash throughout their employment
by the defendants, and received no paystubs or wage statements of
any sort with their pay. In addition, the Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiffs any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40
hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the New York Labor
Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.

Luigi's Pizza owns and operates several pizza restaurants,
including one located in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
          1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 563-9884
          Email: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com


MANITOBA: First Nations Group Files Suit Over Child Welfare System
------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Davidson at thelawyersdaily.ca reports that an advocacy group
for First Nations people in Manitoba has launched a billion-dollar
class action against the province and the federal government for
the taking of "off reserve" children by child protection officials
over the last three decades.  

On Oct. 6, the family advocacy office of the Assembly of Manitoba
Chiefs (AMC) filed a statement of claim against the government of
Manitoba and Canada's Attorney General - an action the AMC says is
the "first specific to 'off-reserve' children . . . . who were
apprehended by Child and Family Services and placed into foster
care."

The lawsuit, launched on behalf of First Nations children, families
and communities impacted by the Manitoba Child Welfare System,"
would cover apprehensions from 1992 to the present, according to a
news release.

AMC and other plaintiffs are seeking $1 billion in compensation;
"an immediate stop to the discriminatory practices that result in
the apprehension of so many First Nations children"; recognition
that the well-being of First Nation children be entrenched in First
Nations laws; and "properly funded services" for First Nations
children.

"There are approximately 11,000 children in the child welfare
system in Manitoba, 80 per cent of whom are First Nations and many
of those children are apprehended off-reserve," states the AMC.

It goes on to allege that the province's child welfare system has
impacted three groups: the children, their families and their First
Nations.

"All three groups must be represented in order to advance
restorative justice and ensure that the tragic errors of the past
are not repeated," the AMC goes on to state.

"As our class action clearly states: Manitoba and Canada's
disastrous management of child welfare in this province perpetuates
a long-standing effort to assimilate First Nations children," says
AMC Deputy Grand Chief Cornell McLean. "In the guise of providing
care, Manitoba and Canada have employed discriminatory practices to
destroy First Nations families and Nations. This action seeks to
end the harm, together with compensation to help us heal as a
Nation."

The AMC alleges First Nations children in Manitoba's foster care
system have been kept from learning "distinct and sacred
teachings," essential spiritual guidance and taking pride in their
"true identity and culture."

"This ongoing practice sets up First Nations children to fail as
adults, where they are disproportionately vulnerable to poverty,
homelessness, mental health issues, unemployment, illness, poor
educational outcomes, human trafficking, gang recruitment, and
involvement in the criminal justice system."

A request to AMC for comment and additional information was not
returned by press time.

Manitoba's government was also asked for comment. However, a
provincial spokesperson had little to say on the matter.

"We have been served with the lawsuit and will be reviewing it,"
they said in an e-mail to The Lawyer's Daily. "The province's
response will be made in court in due course."

The filing of AMC's statement of claim comes just months after the
federal government reached a $20-billion settlement with the
Assembly of First Nations and other plaintiffs involving
compensation for young people allegedly harmed and discriminated
against by the child welfare system.

If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for The
Lawyer's Daily, please contact Terry Davidson at
t.davidson@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5899. [GN]

MARS INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Titanium Dioxide in Skittles
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien at Legal Newsline reports that the amount of titanium
dioxide in Skittles is legal under Food and Drug Administration
regulations, the candy's maker is pointing out as it fights a class
action lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed in July in California federal court by plaintiff
Jenile Thames, says Mars, Inc., has failed on its promise to phase
out titanium dioxide, which is used for artificial color. It cites
a 2016 press release from the company.

"Plaintiff alleges that TiO2 should be removed from SKITTLES(R)
products altogether because he and others disagree with FDA's
conclusion that TiO2 is safe," a Sept. 30 motion to dismiss says.

"He alleges that the products are unsafe but does not allege that
he or anyone else has actually suffered any physical injury from
consuming the product. He also does not allege that he or anyone
else faces a substantial risk of future adverse health
consequences.

"He does not (and cannot) allege that the concentration of TiO2 in
SKITTLES(R) products exceeds FDA's authorized threshold, and he
does not identify any comparable product he would have purchased
instead that he contends is cheaper or safer."

Mars also says it complies with legal requirements to declare
titanium dioxide on Skittles labels.

The press release at issue said Mars would eliminate artificial
colors in its products in "about five years." In 2021, Mars said it
would prioritize removal of them in Europe only.

"Perhaps to avoid dooming class certification, Plaintiff does not
allege he suffered any physical injury from consuming Skittles,"
the motion says. "His generalized allegationis about health risks
or studies cannot substitute for the injury requirement."

Following its filing, the case spawned a copycat class action in
Illinois federal court. Bursor & Fisher says the competing firm -
Foote, Mielke, Chavez & O'Neil of Geneva, Ill., which is
representing plaintiff William Mignin - took its allegations "word
for word."

"And critically, in an apparent rush to file the case, Mr. Mignin's
counsel failed to provide adequate notice to Defendant concerning
its warranty claims, alleging that the complaint itself served as
notice," a motion to appoint Bursor & Fisher as lead counsel says.
[GN]

MATCH GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Use of Face Scans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
operators of dating app Tinder have become the latest tech
companies targeted by a potentially massive class action under
Illinois' biometrics privacy law -- the same law used by class
action lawyers to generate settlements against Facebook and Google
worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

On Oct. 3, attorneys with the firms of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane
Conway & Wise, of St. Louis, and Siri & Glimstad, of New York,
filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Match Group Inc.
and Tinder Inc.

The lawsuits claim the companies violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act by improperly scanning the faces of people
who upload their photos to verify their identities for their
profiles on the massively popular Tinder app.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiffs Bria Randle,
Vanessa Gusman, Kasie Sedwick, Nicole Demonte, Ainsley Jacobson and
Brandy Luker. All of the plaintiffs are identified solely as
residents of Illinois who used the Tinder app.

The lawsuit centers on claims Match improperly scans the facial
geometry of people who verify their identity on Tinder.

According to the complaint, Tinder offers users the opportunity to
earn a "blue checkmark" on their profile, meaning Tinder has
"verified" their profiles under its Liveness Check and 3d Face
Authentication process.

Under those processes, Tinder users upload a video selfie to the
platform. Tinder then scans the user's face in the video to
"confirm the video was taken by a real, live person, and that it
was not digitally altered or manipulated. The system then allegedly
scans other photos the Tinder user submits, and "extracts facial
geometries using facial recognition technology to generate a unique
number or facial geometry template" to compare other photos
against.

The lawsuit doesn't claim Tinder can't use the facial recognition
tech to verify users' identities.

Rather, the lawsuit accuses Match and Tinder of failing to first
secure written consent from Illinois Tinder users and provide
certain notices to those people concerning how the facial scans
will be used, stored, shared and ultimately destroyed, as allegedly
required by the Illinois BIPA law.

According to the complaint, all of the named plaintiffs have used
the Tinder verification process since 2020.

The lawsuits seeks to expand the action to include everyone in
Illinois who has used Tinder and its Liveness Check and 3d Face
Authentication systems.

The complaint doesn't estimate how many people may ultimately be
involved. However, in the U.S. overall, it is estimated 7.8 million
Americans use Tinder every month. And according to published
reports, Chicago ranks as one of the three cities with the most
active Tinder users in the country.

The lawsuit comes as one of the latest potentially huge class
actions to target a big tech firm under the Illinois BIPA law.

Similar class actions over notice and consent requirements for
photographic face scans also were filed against a host of other
social media platforms and photo sharing apps. In two of the most
notable such cases, Facebook agreed to settle the claims against it
for $650 million, while Google settled for $100 million.

From those class actions, eligible class members received $400 each
from the Facebook settlement, and are slated to get about $150 each
from the Google settlement. The lawyers who brought the lawsuits
received $97 million from the Facebook deal, and will get $35
million from the Google case.

Class actions under the BIPA law, even for lesser amounts, have
still largely proven very lucrative for plaintiffs' lawyers. The
bulk of the BIPA class actions to date have mostly targeted
employers who are accused of failing to provide notice and obtain
consent from workers before requiring them to scan fingerprints or
other biometric identifiers to verify their identities when
punching the clock or accessing secure facilities in work places.

Under the law, plaintiffs are allowed to demand damages of
$1,000-$5,000 for each violation. The law has been interpreted to
define individual violations as each time a fingerprint scan or
other biometric scan occurs. This could leave even moderately sized
businesses facing potentially catastrophic damages running far into
the millions of dollars.

Further, courts have, to this point, largely rejected attempts by
defendant businesses to sidestep the lawsuits or at least limit the
potential damages. As a result, nearly all businesses targeted by
such class actions to this point have opted to settle, with
employer settlements ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars
to as much as $50 million.

Lawyers have typically claimed a third of those settlement funds.

In the Tinder case, plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Brandon
M. Wise, Paul A. Lesko and Adam Florek, of the Peiffer Wolf firm,
and attorneys Mason A. Barney and Sonal Jain, of Siri & Glimstad.
[GN]

MEN'S WEARHOUSE: George Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kevin George, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Men's Wearhouse, LLC, Case No.
2022-CA-007167 was removed from the Hillsborough County Circuit
Court, to the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Florida on
Sept. 27, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02229 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute.

The Men's Wearhouse, LLC -- https://www.menswearhouse.com/ --
retails apparel. The Company provides suits, sport coats, slacks,
shirts, shoes, sweaters, pants, and accessories for men..[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Liana Hollingsworth, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE, LLP
          200 Public Square, Suite 1400
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1724
          Phone: (216) 479-6152
          Fax: (216) 937-3406
          Email: lrhollingsworth@vorys.com


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Young Sues Over Defective Vehicle Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis Young, Enrique Perez, Merissa Jones, Valeriu Matei, Teresa
Isom, Linda Blackwell, Kia Watson, Muhammed Jackson, Levanda
Gayden, Jackie Rasmussen, Siro Brenes, Carl Clark, Andrea Geoly,
and Keith Colwell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz
Group AG f/k/a Daimler AG, Case No. 3:22-cv-05502-ZNQ-DEA (D.N.J.,
Sept. 12, 2022), is brought arising out of a defect that causes the
battery in Mercedes vehicles to drain rapidly and unexpectedly (the
"Electrical Drain Defect" or "Defect").

Because this Defect arises out of the common electrical system used
across a broad swath of Mercedes vehicles, it is present in
Mercedes vehicles manufactured between 2004 and 2022, including but
not limited to Mercedes Class S, C, A, CLA, CLS, G, GLA, GLK, GLC,
ML, GLE, GL, GLS, and E. In all vehicles, the Electrical Drain
Defect causes the battery to suddenly drain, preventing the car
from starting, potentially stranding the occupants and endangering
their safety. In certain Affected Vehicles, the Defect can also
cause vehicle performance to suffer, including the performance of
electrical safety systems. That is, the Electrical Drain Defect
renders the Affected Vehicles unsafe, unreliable and undesirable.

Based on its earlier, repeatedly failed efforts to address the
Electrical Drain Defect, customer complaints, repair data, and
other internal sources, Mercedes knew or should have known about
the existence of the Electrical Drain Defect and its consequences,
to the point that its own technical service bulletins referred to
the Defect as a "known issue." Nevertheless, Mercedes has never
offered to repair the Electrical Drain Defect or otherwise
compensate Class Members for their injuries resulting from the
defect which it has not repaired. Mercedes has likewise never
disclosed, and has actively concealed, the presence of the
Electrical Drain Defect in the Affected Vehicles, and continues to
market its vehicles as safe and reliable, leaving purchasers to
carry the costs of dealing with the defect.

As a result of Mercedes' misconduct, Plaintiffs and other Class
Members were harmed and suffered actual damages in the form of
overpayment for their vehicles, diminished value, and expenses
related to the undisclosed Electrical Drain Defect which Mercedes
has failed to rectify. The Plaintiffs and each and every Class
Member have suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of Mercedes'
omissions and misrepresentations regarding the Affected Vehicles,
included but not limited to out-of-pocket loss and the diminished
value of the Affected Vehicles. Neither Mercedes nor any of its
agents, dealers, or other representatives informed Plaintiffs or
Class Members of the Electrical Drain Defect prior to purchase,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased one of the Affected Vehicles.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of designing,
engineering, manufacturing, testing, marketing, supplying, selling,
and distributing motor vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660
          Phone: (973) 639-1000

               - and -

          Scott Alan George, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market, Ste. 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 564-2300

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, New Jersey 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700


MERCK & CO: Shingles Patients Oppose Dismissal of Vaccine Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Heebink at lawstreetmedia.com reports that the plaintiffs
in ongoing litigation against Merck & Co. filed an opposition in
response to Merck's motion to dismiss in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The initial complaint accused Merck of being
negligent in producing and marketing their ZOSTAVAX vaccine, which
the plaintiff asserted led to both them and the class developing
shingles and sustaining injuries.

Merck's motion seeks for the court to hold that the only way for
the plaintiffs to prove causation in this case is through the PCR
testing of the alleged shingles injuries, rather than other testing
and types of diagnoses. They contend that since no PCR tests were
provided, there is no way to link their ZOSTAVAX vaccine with the
development of shingles. Accordingly, they claim that the court
should dismiss the suit in its entirety.

The plaintiffs claim that if the court were to grant the motion,
they would effectively dismiss "more than 1,100 Shingles-injury
cases on the sole basis that none of the doctors who treated these
individuals' Shingles rashes conducted an admittedly unhelpful PCR
test to detect vaccine strain varicella-zoster virus."

Since the plaintiffs did not use PCR tests, they explain they have
not failed to provide the PCR tests since they never existed and
"Merck has never publicly warned any healthcare provider of the
need to test Shingles rashes after vaccination." The opposition
document also notes that Merck admitted in earlier motion that "PCR
testing is not and cannot be conclusive" of what caused an
individual's Shingles outbreak. [GN]

MID-ATLANTIC BUILDERS: Attorneys' Fees in Nesbitt Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GWENDOLYN NESBITT, ET AL. v. MID-ATLANTIC BUILDERS OF
DAVENPORT, INC., Case No. 895 , September Term, 2021 (Md. Spec.
App.), the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirms the
judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County striking
the Appellants' Notice of Dismissal, lifting the stay, confirming
the arbitration award, and awarding attorneys' fees to the
Appellee.

Appellants Gwendolyn and Leeroy Nesbitt filed a class action
lawsuit against Appellee Mid-Atlantic in the Circuit Court for
Prince George's County, asserting that the Appellee violated
various statutory disclosure requirements pertaining to water and
sewer assessments in the sale of residential real property. The
case was stayed pending arbitration. After the arbitrator rendered
a decision adverse to appellants, the Appellants filed a Notice of
Dismissal. The circuit court ultimately struck the Appellants'
Notice of Dismissal, lifted the stay, confirmed the arbitration
award, and awarded attorneys' fees to the Appellee.

The Appellants noted this timely appeal and present the following
questions for the Court of Special Appeals' review:

      1. Whether the circuit court had the authority or exceeded
its authority in vacating a Notice of Dismissal filed pursuant to
Maryland Rule 2-506(a)(1) and entered by the Clerk of the Court
when the Notice of Dismissal was filed before the adverse party
filed an answer.

      2. Whether the circuit court had the authority or exceeded
its authority in awarding attorneys' fees pursuant to Maryland Rule
2-704 for a claim for breach of contract when the requesting party
failed to include any such claim in its initial or amended
pleading.

On Nov. 10, 2016, the Appellants entered into a contract with the
Appellee for the purchase of residential property. The property was
subject to a Declaration of Deferred Water and Sewer Charges,
consisting of a continuing lien to reimburse Savannah Utility
Company for the cost of constructing water and sewer systems
serving the real estate development. The Declaration imposes an
annual charge of $1,020 for 30 years, although the property owner
may prepay the deferred charges in a lump sum amount computed by
Savannah Utility Co. The Purchase Agreement executed by the parties
contained an addendum notifying appellants of the Declaration.

On Aug. 5, 2019, the Appellants filed a class action complaint
alleging that the Appellee provided inaccurate information
concerning the deferred charges and prepayment option, thereby
violating the disclosure requirements set forth in Md. Code (1974,
2015 Repl. Vol.), Section 14-117(a)(3) of the Real Property Article
("RP").

The purported class consisted of: All persons who entered into a
purchase agreement with Mid-Atlantic on or after Jan. 1, 2015 for
the initial sale of residential real property located in Prince
George's County, Maryland for which there are deferred private
water and sewer assessments recorded by a covenant or declaration.

The class action complaint alleged three separate statutory
violations of RP Section 14-117.

On Oct. 23, 2019, the Appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, to Compel Arbitration. It alleged that, pursuant to
the Purchase Agreement, the Appellants were required to submit
their claims to binding arbitration. It additionally requested,
pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, attorneys' fees incurred to
enforce the arbitration provision of the contract. In opposing this
motion, the Appellants argued that the Appellee had breached the
underlying contract and waived its right to arbitration. They also
argued that the Appellee was not entitled to attorneys' fees.

After a hearing on Dec. 11, 2019, the court issued an order
compelling arbitration and stayed the case pending the "resolution
of the issues through arbitration." It did not explicitly address
the attorneys' fees issue in its December 2019 order.

Pursuant to the court's December 2019 order, the case proceeded to
arbitration. In the arbitration proceeding, the Appellee filed a
counterclaim in which it sought to recover the "costs associated
with addressing" the Appellants' complaint that was filed in
violation of the arbitration provision. An arbitrator presided over
a hearing on Oct. 28, 2020, and heard testimony from Appellant
Gwendolyn Nesbitt and the Appellee's representative, Roger Lebbin,
President of Mid-Atlantic Builders. The parties submitted
post-hearing briefs to the arbitrator. On Jan. 26, 2021, the
arbitrator issued his decision, concluding that the Appellee did
not violate RP Section 14-117. Regarding the Appellee's request for
attorneys' fees, the arbitrator was concerned that the attorneys'
fees provision in the contract had not been triggered because "the
case had not yet been technically dismissed."

On Feb. 9, 2021, just 14 days after the issuance of the arbitration
decision adverse to them, the Appellants filed a Notice of
Dismissal with Prejudice in the circuit court. The clerk entered
the dismissal on Feb. 11, 2021.

On Feb. 12, 2021, the Appellee filed a motion requesting that the
court strikes the Appellants' notice of dismissal, confirms the
arbitration award, and awards the Appellee attorneys' fees. In
their opposition to the Appellee's motion to strike the notice of
dismissal, the Appellants argued that, because the Appellee had
never filed an answer in the circuit court case, the court had "no
authority to 'strike' a Notice of Dismissal filed pursuant to
Maryland Rule 2-506(a)(1)." The Appellants additionally argued that
the Appellee was not entitled to attorneys' fees because, under the
terms of the contract, the Appellee may only "recover the cost of
obtaining the dismissal." The Appellants reasoned that, because
they voluntarily dismissed their complaint, the Appellee did not
"obtain the dismissal."

After a hearing, the circuit court granted the Appellee's motion to
strike the Appellants' notice of dismissal, lifted the stay,
confirmed the arbitration award, and awarded $8,644.43 in
attorneys' fees and costs to the Appellee.

In its June 7, 2021 order, the circuit court provided the following
reasoning for striking the notice of dismissal: "The Court stayed
this case by its December 2019 Order. Therefore, the Clerk of the
Circuit Court lacked the authority to dismiss this matter under Md.
Rule 2-506(a)(1). To decide otherwise would allow appellants to
circumvent the Court's grant of appellee's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and render the Arbitration and its subsequent award to
appellee, in this case, a nullity. This result is not supported by
the public policy goal of judicial economy or parties' right to
choose their litigation forum. On June 16, 2021, appellants filed a
Motion to Alter Judgment, arguing for the first time that appellee
was not entitled to attorneys' fees because it had not included a
claim for attorneys' fees in an initial pleading in accordance with
Rule 2-704(b). Appellants also continued to challenge the circuit
court's authority to strike their Notice of Dismissal. Appellee
filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter Judgment,
arguing that, because appellants had not raised their Rule 2-704
argument previously, they had waived it. On July 28, 2021, the
circuit court denied appellants' Motion to Alter Judgment without a
hearing. Appellants then noted this appeal."

The Appellants argue that the circuit court erred in two ways:
first, by striking their Notice of Dismissal, and second, by
awarding attorneys' fees to appellee. They argue that "a plaintiff
has the absolute right to voluntarily dismiss a case pursuant to
Maryland Rule 2-506(a) at any time before the adverse party files
an answer." They reason that because the Appellee had not filed an
answer, they had the unfettered right to dismiss their case,
thereby precluding the court from even considering the Appellee's
Motion to Strike Notice of Dismissal.

The Court of Special Appeals initially notes that Md. Rule 2-506(a)
is substantively similar to Fed. Rule 41(a)(1). It agrees with the
PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc., 844 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2016)
court that a voluntary dismissal does not divest the court of
jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award. There PTA-FLA,
despite the existence of an arbitration clause in the underlying
agreement, sued ZTE USA in state court, alleging that ZTE USA
breached a contract to provide PTA-FLA with suitable
telecommunications equipment. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that
preserving jurisdiction over collateral issues is consistent with
the policy and purpose of Rule 41(a)(1), which was designed to
limit a plaintiff's ability to dismiss an action.

The Court of Special Appeals agrees with PTA-FLA that a court that
compels arbitration retains jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration
award independent of a party's voluntary dismissal of its
complaint. It likewise concludes that a motion to confirm is a
collateral claim over which the court retains jurisdiction. In the
instant case, the court retained jurisdiction to confirm the award
and consider the Appellee's counterclaim for attorneys' fees that
was litigated in arbitration without objection and expressly
reserved by the arbitrator for the court's consideration.

In light of these well-established principles, the Court of Special
Appeals concludes that the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the Appellants' Motion to Alter Judgment
based on an argument that they "neglected to make initially."

The Court of Special Appeals concludes that, although the circuit
court may have erred in striking the Appellants' Notice of
Dismissal because the plain language of Rule 2-506(a) permitted
them to dismiss their complaint, the court retained jurisdiction
under the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act to confirm the
arbitration award and adjudicate the Appellee's counterclaim for
attorneys' fees. In its view, this result comports with the
directive to "give the rule a reasonable interpretation in tune
with logic and common sense."

Therefore, the judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George's
County is affirmed. Costs will be paid by the Appellants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mcb9kzpw from Leagle.com.


MILLION NAILS: Pita Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cresenciana Pita, and other similarly-situated employees v. MILLION
NAILS INC, BLOOMIE NAILS & SPA 21, INC, NAIL TIQUE LIU & XU LLC,
BEN XU a/k/a XU BEN or BEN TENG and LUCIA MARTINEZ, Case No.
1:22-cv-08245-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 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. Lab. Law, and the "spread
of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commission of
Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs as well as claims for discriminatory
treatment under city and state law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours she worked each week. 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 per day, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants.

The Defendants own, operate, and/or control nail salons called NEW
MILLION NAIL SALON and BLOOMIE NAILS & SPA 21 in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Colin Mulholland, Esq.
          30-97 Steinway, Ste. 301-A
          Astoria, NY 11103
          Phone: (347) 687-2019


MODERNIST HOTEL: Chavez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Modernist Hotel
LLC. The case is styled as Kenneth T. Chavez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. The Modernist Hotel LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-05767 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2022).

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

The Modernist Hotel -- https://themodernisthotelnyc.com/ -- is an
art-centric, newly remodeled hotel located in the neighborhood of
Long Island City in the Queens borough of New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


NELNET SERVICING: Bird Files Suit in D. Nebraska
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelnet Servicing,
LLC. The case is styled as Antonia Bird, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC,
Case No. 4:22-cv-03195-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb., Sept. 9, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.

Nelnet -- https://nelnetinc.com/ -- is the largest operating
businesses engage in student loan servicing, tuition payment
processing and school information systems, and communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cody A. Bolce, Esq.
          555 12th Street, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Phone: (510) 891-9800
          Email: cab@colevannote.com


NELNET SERVICING: Gamen Files Suit in D. Nebraska
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelnet Servicing,
LLC. The case is styled as Ryan Gamen, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No.
4:22-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb., Sept. 16, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Nelnet -- https://nelnetinc.com/ -- is the largest operating
businesses engage in student loan servicing, tuition payment
processing and school information systems, and communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Anderson Berry, Esq.
          ARNOLD LAW FIRM
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 777-7777
          Email: lori@justice4you.com


NELNET SERVICING: Miller Files Suit in D. Nebraska
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelnet Servicing,
LLC. The case is styled as Barbara Miller, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No.
4:22-cv-03193-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb., Sept. 8, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Account Receivable.

Nelnet -- https://nelnetinc.com/ -- is the largest operating
businesses engage in student loan servicing, tuition payment
processing and school information systems, and communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Phillips, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE, STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775

               - and -

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG LAW FIRM
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
          Washington, DC 20015
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: dlietz@milberg.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG, COLEMAN LAW FIRM - ILLINOIS
          227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com


NELNET SERVICING: Simmons Files Suit in D. Nebraska
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelnet Servicing,
LLC. The case is styled as Francine Simmons, individually and on
behalf all others similarly situated v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case
No. 4:22-cv-03194-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb., Sept. 8, 2022).

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

Nelnet -- https://nelnetinc.com/ -- is the largest operating
businesses engage in student loan servicing, tuition payment
processing and school information systems, and communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Fax: (202) 429-2294
          Email: dperry@masonllp.com
                 gmason@masonllp.com
                 lwhite@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO, RATHOD LAW FIRM
          412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: (202) 470-3520
          Fax: (202) 800-2730
          Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
                 nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com


NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Powder Drink Mix
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims that packages of Carnation Breakfast
Essentials Nutritional Powder Drink Mix are misleadingly labeled in
that the product contains less protein than advertised.

The 10-page complaint alleges that defendant Nestle Healthcare
Nutrition has misrepresented the protein content of its powdered
drink mix, promoting 13 grams of protein per serving when it
contains only five grams.

Although the front label of the Carnation Breakfast Essentials
drink mix promotes "13g Protein," smaller print reveals that
consumers must add milk to reach the advertised total amount of
protein "per prepared serving," the suit says. The case argues that
consumers would not think they need to add milk to the product
because the label claim "3x vitamin D vs. milk" positions the drink
mix as comparable to milk.

Moreover, the complaint asserts that the product label provides no
instructions about how much milk to add or what kind of milk is
required to obtain the advertised 13 grams of protein. The case
says that due to the drink mix's mislabeling, the plaintiff was led
to believe that "whatever she mixed it with, such as water or milk,
would not result in her getting less than 13g of protein."

Per the complaint, Nestle Healthcare Nutrition has purposefully
mislabeled its drink mix to increase profits.

"Defendant was aware of the studies and reports showing that
consumers are increasingly seeking foods with protein content, and
used this information -- some of it proprietary -- to market it to
consumers like Plaintiff."

Likewise, marketing insights firm Precedence Research states that
the global protein ingredients market is projected to grow from $72
billion to $114 billion by 2030. A study at NielsenIQ also shows
that the market for plant-based protein, including dairy
alternatives, is rapidly growing.

The lawsuit looks to cover New York, Utah, Wyoming, Arkansas, North
Carolina, and Alabama residents who have purchased Carnation
Breakfast Essentials Nutritional Powder Drink Mix within the
statutory period. [GN]

NETSPEND CORPORATION: Amis Files Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Netspend Corporation,
et al. The case is styled as Gilbert Amis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Netspend Corporation,
MetaBank, N.A., Case No. 2:22-cv-06598-FMO-GJS (C.D. Cal., Sept.
15, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated Other Statutory Actions.

Netspend -- https://www.netspend.com/ -- is a leading provider of
consumer, small business and commercial prepaid debit card
solutions in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gil Melili, Esq.
          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (850) 520-5523
          Email: gil@kazlg.com
                 ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          321 N. Mall Drive, Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: jason@kazlg.com


NEWELL-BERG ALLIANCE: Coffelt Files Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA COFFELT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEWELL-BERG ALLIANCE TN, LLC d/b/a POPEYES
SUPREME FOODS, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00768 (M.D. Tenn.,
September 30, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought by the
Plaintiff alleging the Defendant of violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a natural parent, legal guardian, and next of kin
of E.W., who is a minor and who was employed by the Defendant as an
hourly-paid employee.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant employed an illegal pay
practice by failing to properly compensate E.W. and other similarly
situated for all hours that they have worked. Accordingly, E.W. and
all other similarly situated hourly-paid employees worked more 40
hours within weekly pay periods. However, the Defendant "edited
out" their hours worked and did not compensate them for their "off
the clock" work. As a result, the Defendant willfully failed to pay
them their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 per workweek.

On behalf of E.W. and all others similarly situated hourly-paid
employees, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wags
at the applicable overtime rate of pay against the Defendant, as
well as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and all
costs of this action, post-judgment interest and court costs, and
other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Newell-Berg Alliance TN, LLC d/b/a Popeyes Supreme Foods is a
franchisee of Popeye's Inc. and owns and operates Popeye's
Louisiana Kitchens in Clarksville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
            OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

NEWREZ LLC: Sanak FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Szymon Sanak, individually, an on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Newrez LLC doing business as:
Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Case No. 2022-CH-07577 was removed
from the Circuit Court of Cook County, to the U.S. District Court
for Eastern District of Missouri on Sept. 14, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-04999 to the
proceeding.

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

Newrez LLC -- https://www.newrez.com/ -- is a leading nationwide
mortgage lender and servicer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur C. Czaja, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR C. CZAJA
          7521 N. Milwaukee Avenue
          Niles, IL 60714
          Phone: (847) 647-2106
          Email: arthur@czajalawoffices.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rebekah A Carpenter, Esq.
          Ronald C. Gilbert, III, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          71 S. Wacker Dr., 46th Flr
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 634-5700
          Email: rebekah.carpenter@akerman.com
                 ronald.gilbert@akerman.com


NICE-PAK PRODUCTS: Walters Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nice-Pak Products,
Inc. The case is styled as Jeffery Walters, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. Nice-Pak Products, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01780-JRS-DLP (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2022).

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

Nice-Pak Products, Inc. -- https://www.nicepak.com/ -- designs,
manufactures, markets, and distributes wet wipe products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Lalak, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 East 9th Street, Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: (216) 230-2955
          Email: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher St NW, Ste. B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


NONNI'S FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Real Lemon Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
manufacturer of a lemon-flavored biscotti is facing a class action
alleging its product misleads consumers about its real lemon
contents.

Nancy Goldstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint Sept. 21 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida-West Palm Beach Division against
Nonni's Foods, LLC alleging violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, consumer fraud, breach of express
warranty and other claims.

Goldstein alleges in her class action that Nonni's Foods falsely
represents that its Limone Biscotti cookies contain "real
ingredients" and no "artificial flavors." She claims the product
contains a "de minimis amount of lemon" and that Nonni's uses
"lemon extenders and enhancers" from non-lemon sources.

Goldstein further claims consumers paid more for the product
because they believe the cookies get their taste "exclusively or
predominantly" from lemon ingredients. She also claims laboratory
testing showed the cookies contain a miniscule amount of lemon that
is not correctly displayed on the label and is misleading to
consumers.

Goldstein claims Nonni's Foods misrepresented the composition and
attributes of the product in violation of Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act. She also claims Nonni's Foods intended
for consumers to rely on the false statements for the purpose of
selling its product and that pictures of lemon rind and lemon peel
on the box falsely represent the cookies' main flavor is lemon from
lemon ingredients.

Goldstein seeks monetary relief, trial by jury and all other just
relief. She is represented by Will Wright of The Wright Law Office
PA in West Palm Beach and Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates
PC in Great Neck N.Y.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida West Palm
Beach Division case number 9:22-CV-81462-AMC [GN]

NORDIC SHOPS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Nordic Shops,
Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. The Nordic Shops, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08281 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2022).

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

The Nordic Shops, Inc. -- https://www.thenordicshop.net/ -- is a
gift shop specializing in Scandinavian goods, from clothing &
jewelry to home accents & kitchenware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


NORTH STATES INDUSTRIES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against North States
Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. North States
Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08247 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27,
2022).

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

North States Industries -- https://northstatesind.com/ -- is an
e-commerce company that manufactures and supplies products to
enhance the life of babies, pets and birds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Dec. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Opendoor Technologies Inc. ("Opendoor" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: OPEN) and certain of its officers and directors. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona, and docketed under 22-cv-01717, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Opendoor securities between
December 21, 2020 and September 16, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"); and/or (b) Opendoor common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Offering Documents (defined below) issued in
connection with the business combination between the Company and
Opendoor Labs Inc. ("Legacy Opendoor") completed on or about
December 18, 2020 (the "Merger"). Plaintiff pursues claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Opendoor securities during the Class Period, and/or Opendoor common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the business combination between the Company and
Opendoor Labs Inc., you have until December 6, 2022 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. [GN]


ORANGE BUSINESS: Hannaby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orange Business
Services U.S., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Daniel Hannaby,
on behalf of himself and all, others similarly situated v. Orange
Business Services U.S., Inc., Orange Silicon Valley, LLC, Case No.
CGC22602025 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 28, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Personal Injury/Property Damage -
Non-Vehicle Related."

Orange Business Services -- https://www.orange-business.com/en --
the business services arm of Orange S.A., is a global integrator of
communications products and services for multinational
corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          305 W Nationwide Blvd.
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 384-7034
          Fax: (614) 224-6066
          Email: mwilson@meyerwilson.com


ORTHOPAEDIC AND NEUROLOGICAL: Fermin-Hayes Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Faith Fermin-Hayes, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ORTHOPAEDIC AND NEUROLOGICAL REHABILITATION
INC. and ORTHOPAEDIC & NEUROLOGICAL REHABILITATION, SPEECH
PATHOLOGY INC., DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-01715-CKD (E.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2022), is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule 23 and California Wage laws as a result of the Defendants
willful failure to pay Plaintiff all wages owed in accordance with
California State laws, including unpaid overtime for time worked
more than 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week and were not paid a
premium for not receiving uninterrupted off-duty breaks.

The Defendants have maintained an unlawful scheme to avoid its
overtime pay obligations and deny lawfully required bona fide
off-duty breaks to a class of a thousand or more Directors of
Rehabilitation ("DOR"), and other persons working under various
titles to describe the same position, to increase profits to the
tune of millions of dollars each year at the expense of its hard
working and dedicated employees. As part of this scheme to avoid
paying wages, and to save millions in labor costs as well as to
unfairly reap many millions of dollars in profits, akin to stealing
the earned wages of a thousand or more employees, Defendants
maintained a nationwide, unlawful pay practice of deducting wages
from the salaries of the DOR when their work hours or billable
Medicare hours dipped below 40 hours for the week.

The Plaintiff and Class Members were unlawfully not compensated a
premium for all hours worked over 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a
week, each workweek, by a scheme and plan of Defendants to evade
the overtime wage laws and save many millions of dollars in labor
costs to the detriment and harm of the Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated present and former employees. Likewise, the
Defendants required the Plaintiff and Class Members to work more
than hours per day without receiving all mandated off-duty meal
periods. The Defendants had, and continue to have, a pattern and
practice of productivity requirements for billable treatment and
Medicare hours, (upwards of 60% of the total daily work hours)
which left no time for 30-minute uninterrupted off-duty meal
periods and rest breaks, which the Defendants knew and continues to
employ to this day. The Plaintiff routinely worked during and
through any meal breaks without being paid additional sums or being
able to claim this time, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Physical Therapy (PT)
and Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) under the title of Physical
Therapist-Director of Rehab from September 2021 until August 2022.

ORTHOPEDIC AND NEUROLOICAL REHABILITATION INC. has routinely and
consistently conducted business in the State of California through
its numerous, fixed long term health care and nursing home
facilities or locations, including in this district.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6916 West Linebaugh Avenue, # 101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Phone: (813) 639-9366
          Fax: (813) 639-9376
          Email: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
                 Mail@feldmanlegal.us

               - and -

          David Ratner, Esq.
          Shelley Molineaux, Esq.
          RATNER MOLINEAUX LLP
          1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 20
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 393-7511
          Facsimile: (925) 891-3818
          Email: david@ratnermolineaux.com
                 shelley@ratnermolineaux.com


PACIFIER LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacifier, LLC. The
case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Pacifier, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08280
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2022).

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

Pacifier -- https://pacifierkids.com/ -- is an urban baby + kid
boutique offering cool gifts, clothing, wooden toys, gear, diaper
bags, strollers, nursery furniture, decor and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


PAPA JOHN'S: Faces Lawsuit for Alleged Misuse of Tracking Scripts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rory Bathgate at itpro.co.uk reports that Pizza retailer Papa
John's is facing a class-action lawsuit over allegations that it
used privacy-violating trackers on its website.

Customer David Kauffman filed a lawsuit against the pizza delivery
giant under the Federal Wiretap Act and California Invasion of
Privacy Act, alleging an illegal level of data collection on
customers using its website via session replay tools.

Such tools are commonly used on websites but were described in the
lawsuit as tantamount to spyware given the amount and type of data
they monitor and comunicate back to Papa John's.

Session replay scripts are often deployed for data analytics
purposes but the lawsuit alleged that the volume and type of data
collected far exceeds what is reasonably expected from a
pizza-ordering website.

The scripts track a range of actions made by users on a website,
including how long they stay on each page, what was clicked, and
even mouse cursor movements are tracked and anonymised. These are
often studied for advertising purposes, as well as to investigate
buggy or broken website features.

However, the lawsuit argued that in failing to properly to notify
users of the scripts, Papa John's has violated the Federal Wiretap
Act which penalizes any entity who "intentionally intercepts,
endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept
or endeavour to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic
communication." The CIPA also sets out punishment for anyone who
attempts to intercept communications without the consent of all
involved parties.

"Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably expected that visits to
Defendant's website would be private, and that Defendant would not
be intercepting, tapping, connecting with, or otherwise attempting
to understand their communications with Defendant's website,
particularly because Defendant failed to present Plaintiff and
Class Members with a pop-up disclosure or consent form alerting
Plaintiff that the visits to the website were monitored and
recorded by Defendant," the lawsuit read.

Firms such as Yandex and Clicktale provide session replay for their
customers, as third-party services. The Freedom to Tinker group at
Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy found evidence
of session recording on the websites of companies such as HP,
Comcast and Intel.

However, data protection regulations such as the Data Protection
Act 2018, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and California
Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) lay out strict boundaries on how
personal data can be collected, and used to profile or identify
individuals.

"The technology not only allows the tapping and unauthorised
connection of a visitor's electronic communication with a website,
but also allows the user to create a detailed profile for each
visitor to the site," the lawsuit claimed.

The plaintiff is seeking damages of $10,000 or $100 per day and
violation, whichever of the two is greater. Within the lawsuit, it
is proposed that the class number of affected customers is "in the
hundreds of thousands" and that the damages could therefore exceed
$5,000,000.

Previous concerns around session replay technology have centred
around the inadequate measures deployed by analytics service
Glassbox to censor fields containing sensitive data such as
passwords or payment information within session replay recordings.

IT Pro has approached Papa John's for comment. [GN]

PARADIGM INDUSTRIES: Jessica Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paradigm Industries,
Inc. The case is styled as Alvarez Jessica aka Martha Ofelia
Revolorio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Paradigm Industries, Inc., Case No. 22STCV31522 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 27, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Paradigm Industries -- https://www.paradigmindustries.net/ --
specializes in the fulfillment of your entire apparel process we
help you create, execute and produce your fashion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com


PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Salazar Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Salazar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, d/b/a 247SPORTS, Case No.
3:22-cv-00756 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 27, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection
Act arising from the Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing
to a third party, Meta, Inc. ("Facebook"), data containing the
Plaintiff's and other digital-subscribers Class Members' personally
identifiable information or Facebook ID ("FID") and the computer
file containing video and its corresponding URL viewed ("Video
Media") (collectively, "Personal Viewing Information").

The VPPA prohibits "video tape service providers," such as
247Sports.com, from knowingly disclosing consumers' personally
identifiable information, including "information which identifies a
person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or
services from a video tape provider," without express consent in a
stand-alone consent form. Like other businesses with an online
presence, Defendant collects and shares the personal information of
visitors to its website and mobile application with third parties.
Defendant does this through cookies, software development kits
("SDK"), and pixels. In other words, digital subscribers to
247Sports.com have their personal information disclosed to
Defendant's third-party business partners.

The Facebook pixel is a code Defendant installed on 247Sports.com
allowing it to collect users' data. More specifically, it tracks
when digital subscribers enter 247Sports.com or 247Sports.com's
accompanying App and view Video Media. 247Sports.com tracks and
discloses to Facebook the digital subscribers' viewed Video Media,
and most notably, the digital subscribers' FID. This occurs even
when the digital subscriber has not shared (nor consented to share)
such information.

Importantly, the Defendant shares the Personal Viewing Information
– i.e., digital subscribers' unique FID and video content viewed
– together as one data point to Facebook. Because the digital
subscriber's FID uniquely identifies an individual's Facebook user
account, Facebook—or any other ordinary person—can use it to
quickly and easily locate, access, and view digital subscribers'
corresponding Facebook profile. Put simply, the pixel allows
Facebook to know what Video Media one of its users viewed on
247Sports.com. Thus, without telling its digital subscribers,
Defendant profits handsomely from its unauthorized disclosure of
its digital subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook.


It does so at the expense of its digital subscribers' privacy and
their statutory rights under the VPPA. Because 247Sports.com
digital subscribers are not informed about this dissemination of
their Personal Viewing Information--indeed, it is automatic and
invisible--they cannot exercise reasonable judgment to defend
themselves against the highly personal ways 247Sports.com has used
and continues to use data it has about them to make money for
itself.

The Defendant chose to disregard Plaintiff's and hundreds of
thousands of other 247Sports.com digital subscribers' statutorily
protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive data to
Facebook. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action for
legal and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to
Defendant's practices of intentionally disclosing its digital
subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook in knowing
violation of VPPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began a digital subscription to 247Sports.com in 2022
which continues to this day.

The Defendant Paramount Global is a publicly traded multinational
media conglomerate headquartered in New York City and is the parent
company of 247Sports, owner and operator of 247Sports.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Schaffer Lawson, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          424 Church Street, Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Phone: 615-620-1715
          Email: rlawson@dickinson-wright.com

               - and -

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          73 W. Monroe, 5th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: 312-444-0734
          Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202.494.3531
          Email: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com


PATINA INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patina, Inc. The case
is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Patina, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08250
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2022).

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

Patina -- https://www.patinainc.com/ -- offers hand-crafted,
hand-painted furniture that captures the elegant style of 18th
century Italian and French decorative arts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that purchasers of
PayPal Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: PYPL) common stock between February
3, 2021 and February 1, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") have
until December 5, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the
PayPal class action lawsuit. Captioned Defined Benefit Plan of the
Mid-Jersey Trucking Industry and Teamsters Local 701 Pension and
Annuity Fund v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 22-cv-05864 (D.N.J.),
the PayPal class action lawsuit charges PayPal and certain of its
top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the PayPal class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-paypal-holdings-inc-class-action-lawsuit-pypl.html

You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the PayPal class action lawsuit must be filed
with the court no later than December 5, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: The PayPal class action lawsuit alleges that
PayPal throughout the Class Period touted the growth in its Net New
Active Accounts ("NNAs") and instructed investors to value the high
growth in this metric as one of the most important indicators of
how PayPal was performing.

But as the PayPal class action lawsuit alleges, while touting its
NNA growth, PayPal failed to disclose that many of the additional
users acquired through its cash account creation incentive
campaigns were illusory because those incentive campaigns were
easily susceptible to fraud. Specifically, PayPal failed to
disclose that its cash incentive campaigns significantly increased
PayPal's susceptibility to bot farms that were able to
systematically take advantage of PayPal's $10.00 account opening by
creating millions of illegitimate accounts, which ultimately
generated no future revenue for PayPal. In addition, the PayPal
class action lawsuit alleges that investors were unaware of the
lengths PayPal was going to keep inactive customers and fake bot
accounts on the platform to prevent churn and inflate its NNA
guidance which would have provided a more realistic view of the
true demand for PayPal's platform.

On February 1, 2022, PayPal revealed that its NNAs were only 49
million for 2021, less than the guidance of 50 million it initially
provided in February 2021. In doing so, PayPal admitted that "in
connection with the increased use of [cash] incentive campaigns
throughout 2021, [PayPal] identified 4.5 million accounts that
[PayPal] believe[s] were illegitimately created," and that as a
result PayPal changed course on some of its customer acquisition
strategies including incentive-led campaigns in the fourth quarter.
Further, because PayPal was evolving its customer acquisition and
engagement strategy, PayPal now expected only 15-20 million net new
customer accounts for 2022 and that PayPal "no longer believe[s]
that the 750 million medium-term account aspiration [PayPal] set
last year is appropriate." On this news, PayPal's stock price fell
by approximately 25%, damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased PayPal common
stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the
greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative
class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the PayPal class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the PayPal class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the
PayPal class action lawsuit.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone - more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world
and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for
more information:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html

Attorney advertising.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Contacts:

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

PEPSICO INC: Class Action Agent Files Breach of Contract Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Heltzel, writing for Westchester & Fairfield County Business
Journals, reports that a Harrison company that helps businesses
collect claims in class action lawsuits says Purchase-based PepsiCo
Inc. has dodged more than $1 million in fees for its services.

Kent Recovery Services accused PepsiCo of breach of contract in a
Sept. 28 complaint filed in Westchester Supreme Court.

But a PepsiCo official claims that Kent did not do any significant
work, according to exhibits of emails filed with the lawsuit.

The dispute is over the Mercedes-Benz Blue Tec settlement in a 2016
class-action lawsuit filed in New Jersey federal court. The case
concerned sedans, SUVs and cargo vans manufactured from 2009 to
2016 that emit more nitrogen oxides that permitted under state and
federal clean air laws.

Owners and lessees were eligible for cash payments of $2,693 to
$3,590 per vehicle.

On April 13, 2021, PepsiCo senior litigation counsel Charles S.
Biener signed a deal with Kent managing director Leonard E.
Veneziano appointing Kent as its exclusive claims agent in the
Mercedes-Benz case. PepsiCo agreed to pay Kent 20% of the funds it
received.

Two days later, Biener asked Veneziano to "hold off on doing
anything further." PepsiCo staff had already been working on the
claim for several months, the email states, "directly with Mercedes
and with another third-party."

Three months later, Veneziano said in an email to Biener that Kent
expected PepsiCo to honor the deal.

"I am surprised and disappointed by Kent's position," Biener
replied the following day, and he revoked Kent's authority to file
anything on behalf of PepsiCo.

Fourteen months later, Veneziano messaged Biener: "I suspect
PepsiCo has received their first distribution, as Kent has received
checks for its other clients. Please advise of the total received
so that Kent can prepare and send an invoice for payment."

"Kent did not do any significant work for PepsiCo . . . prior to my
notice to you to 'hold off.'" Biener replied ten days later.
"Moreover, I presume Kent did not file a claim on our behalf (and
therefore, did not perform its 'duties' under the agreement)."

Kent claims it has performed the terms of engagement, according to
the complaint, and PepsiCo has repudiated the contract.

"Kent has been damaged in an amount in excess of $1 million," the
complaint states, indicating that PepsiCo received at least $5
millions in the settlement "with the precise amount to be
determined at trial."

Biener was away from the office and unable to reply to emails on
Oct. 3, and the media relations department did not respond to an
email asking for PepsiCo's response to the allegations.

Kent is represented by Purchase attorney Joseph N. Paykin. [GN]

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Court Dismisses Suit Over Denied Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris at madisonrecord.com reports that Belleville lawyers
who proposed a class action against Progressive Casualty in St.
Clair County circuit court saw it slip away in U.S. district court.
   

District Judge Staci Yandle dismissed it on Oct. 2., finding
Progressive didn't violate consumer law, insurance law, or contract
law.

Lloyd A. Cueto, Lloyd M. Cueto, Christopher Cueto, James Radcliffe,
and Steven Giacoletti filed the suit in St. Clair County in 2020.

They claimed Progressive insured plaintiff Sage Laures who sought
coverage after an accident with a motorist who had little or no
coverage.

They claimed Progressive denied coverage and Laures filed for
arbitration.

They claimed Progressive offered $5,000 but didn't tender payment.

They claimed Progressive similarly denied timely payment to
hundreds and most likely thousands of motorists in ten years.

They sought $60,000 in civil penalties for each class member due to
vexatious conduct under state insurance law.

Progressive removed the complaint to district court claiming the
amount in controversy exceeded a $5 million limit on class actions
in state courts.

Laures moved to remand the complaint to St. Clair County claiming
damages wouldn't exceed $5 million.

Yandle denied the motion and wrote, "Plaintiff's allegation that
damages do not exceed $5 million has no legal effect."

She found that in addition to $60,000 penalties Progressive
extrapolated that at least 1,000 class members would have at least
$5,000 in damages.

She found Laures presented no countervailing evidence of the
amount.

Progressive moved to dismiss the complaint and moved in June to
stay the proceedings pending a ruling.

Yandle granted a stay and in four months she shut the action down.

"Neither the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing nor
the policy language obligated Progressive to pay Laures the amount
of the unaccepted settlement offer in the absence of an executed
release or arbitration award."

She found it obvious that absent an obligation to make advance
partial payments, she couldn't find Progressive acted in bad
faith.

Casie Collignon of Denver represented Progressive and Russell Scott
of Belleville acted as local counsel.  

Russell Scott of Belleville acted as local counsel.[GN]

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Mackensen Files Suit in D. Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Direct
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Nicholas Mackensen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Case No.
2:22-cv-02390-KHV-RES (D. Kan., Sept. 28, 2022).

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

The Progressive Corporation -- https://www.progressive.com/ -- is
an American insurance company, the third largest insurance carrier
and the No. 1 commercial auto insurer in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin L. Daesch, Esq.
          ONDERLAW, LLC
          110 E. Lockwood Avenue, 2nd Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Phone: (314) 963-9000
          Fax: (314) 963-1700
          Email: daesch@onderlaw.com


PUPY GROCERY: Santana Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Venecia Reynoso Santana, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. PUPY GROCERY CORP. (D/B/A PUPY DELI GROCERY),
WILLIAM MEDINA, and JUAN ROBERTO MEDINA, Case No. 1:22-cv-08292
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2022), is brought for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
and for violations of the New York Labor Law 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 and overtime 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.
Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a
timely basis. In this regard, the Defendants have failed to provide
timely wages to the Plaintiff and the Defendants' conduct extended
beyond the Plaintiff. The Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring the Plaintiff 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 deli.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located in Bronx,
New York under the name "Pupy Deli Grocery."[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


QUALCOMM INC: NRF Tapped to Defend Business in Which? Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Baker, writing for Legal Business, reports that Norton Rose
Fulbright (NRF) has been called up to a new-look legal team for
Qualcomm as it defends itself from a class action brought by UK
consumer charity Which?.

The dispute hinges on a Which? claim that wireless technology
company Qualcomm breached competition law, and in doing so inflated
the royalties paid by smartphone manufacturers for Qualcomm's
technology, which in turn led to increased prices for customers.

In May this year, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) certified
the collective action, worth £480m. Which? will represent roughly
29 million consumers who purchased certain Apple and Samsung
smartphones since October 2015.

Qualcomm had previously been represented by a London-based
competition litigation team from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
namely department head Kate Vernon and of counsel Maria Campbell.
However, recent filings from the CAT show that Qualcomm is now
being advised by NRF and a Brussels-based Quinn Emanuel team.

NRF's team is comprised of head of antitrust and competition Mark
Simpson, partners Caroline Thomas and Helen Fairhead, as well as a
team of ten associates and trainees.

The new Quinn Emanuel team consists of Brussels EU competition
partner Miguel Rato, counsel Mark English, counsel Marixenia
Davilla, of counsel Athena Kontosakou, associate Hyunseok Doh and
associate Maria Belen Gravano.

Quinn Emanuel and NRF instructed Brick Court Chambers' Nicholas
Saunders KC, Mark Howard KC, Tony Singla KC, and David Bailey,
Alexandra Littlewood of Monckton Chambers and Tom Foxton of One
Essex Court.

Which? meanwhile is being advised by Hausfeld, with a team made up
of partners Nicola Boyle, Wessen Jazwari, Lucy Rigby, four
associates and a legal intern. Hausfeld instructed Jon Turner KC,
Anneli Howard KC, Michael Armitage and Ciar McAndrew, all of
Monckton Chambers.

Quinn Emanuel declined to comment. NRF has been approached for
comment. [GN]

REGALO INTERNATIONAL: Toro Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Regalo International, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08252 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 27, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for its failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://www.regalo-baby.com (hereinafter "Regalo-baby.com"
or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access
to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services
offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

Regalo International provides to the public a website known as
Regalo-baby.com which provides consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including, the ability to view safety gates,
beds, chairs and tents for children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          108-26 64th avenue, Second Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (929) 324-0717
          Fax: (929) 333-7774
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


RINA ACCOUNTANTS: Cresse Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rina Accountants &
Advisors. The case is styled as Richard Cresse, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated v. Rina Accountants &
Advisors, Case No. CGC22601995 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Sept. 28, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Class
Action)."

RINA -- https://www.rina.com/ -- is a premier business advisory and
full-service CPA firm with a dedicated team of accounting and
business professionals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Boyle, Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          305 W Nationwide Blvd.
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 384-7034
          Fax: (614) 224-6066
          Email: mboyle@meyerwilson.com


ROAD RUNNER: Arbitration Denial as to O'Connor in Costa Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUSAN COSTA, Plaintiff and Respondent v. ROAD RUNNER
SPORTS, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. D079393
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth
District, Division One, affirms the trial court's order denying
Road Runner's motion to compel arbitration.

Michael O'Connor signed up for a loyalty program when he bought a
pair of shoes and socks from Road Runner Sports, Inc. and Road
Runner Sports Retail, Inc. (collectively, "Road Runner"). He
alleges Road Runner did not tell him the loyalty program was an
automatic renewal subscription and that his credit card would be
charged an annual subscription fee. After discovering he had been
charged for four years of subscription fees, he joined as the named
Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit alleging Road Runner had
violated California's Automatic Renewal Law and consumer protection
statutes.

Road Runner asserts O'Connor is bound by an arbitration provision
it added to the online terms and conditions of the loyalty program,
some three years after he enrolled. Although Road Runner concedes
O'Connor did not have actual or constructive notice of the
arbitration provision, it contends O'Connor created an
implied-in-fact agreement to arbitrate when he obtained imputed
knowledge of the arbitration provision through his counsel in the
course of litigation and failed to cancel his membership.

Road Runner is a running shoe and athletic apparel company with
more than 35 retail outlets in California and other states, and an
online store. It offers its customers discounts and rewards through
its loyalty program, the "VIP Family Rewards Membership." It
encourages customers to sign up for the loyalty program during the
checkout process. To entice customers, Road Runner offers the
loyalty program membership for a marginal amount -- just $1.99 as
of 2021 -- and offers a 10% discount and 5% cash back incentive on
the customer's first purchase, typically worth more than the
membership purchase price. The customer must have a credit or debit
card on file to sign up and, once enrolled, Road Runner
automatically charges the customer an annual renewal fee of $39.99,
or more, each year.

Mr. O'Connor signed up for the loyalty program at a Road Runner
retail store sometime in 2016. He used his membership to receive a
discount on a pair of shoes and socks when he first enrolled. He
used his membership again to receive a discount in 2017. That was
the last time O'Connor used his membership. Still, Road Runner
automatically charged O'Connor's credit card annual subscriptions
fees ranging from $27.99 to $39.99 in November of 2017, 2018, 2019,
and 2020. O'Connor paid his credit card bill each time, allegedly
without noticing the membership charges.

According to Road Runner, customers like O'Connor who signed up for
a membership while making a purchase in a retail store in 2016
would have received a "retail handout" from the sales associate
making the sale. Road Runner also sent O'Connor a mailer regarding
his membership before each of the renewal charges in 2017, 2018,
and 2019. The mailers from 2017 and 2018 were substantially the
same.

There was no reference to an arbitration provision, or any other
terms and conditions, in the retail handout O'Connor received when
he signed up for the loyalty program in 2016, or in the mailers
sent to him in 2017 and 2018. That is because the arbitration
provision did not exist in those years. The mailer from 2019 also
had the general appearance of a letter, with a notification
regarding a $20 "VIP Anniversary Rewards Gift" at the bottom. Like
the previous 2016 to 2018 materials, the 2019 mailer itself did not
contain any reference to an arbitration provision.

Road Runner began sending renewal notices by email in 2020. It did
not have a valid email address on file for O'Connor, so O'Connor
did not receive any notice in 2020 regarding his loyalty program
membership, or its automatic renewal.

The class action lawsuit was filed against Road Runner in May 2020,
alleging that Road Runner's loyalty program violated the Automatic
Renewal Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, Sections 17601-17606) and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, Section 1750, et seq.), by
(1) failing to disclose clearly and conspicuously the terms of its
automatic renewal membership program before enrolling customers;
(2) automatically charging customers renewal fees without first
obtaining their affirmative consent; and (3) failing to provide an
easy-to-use method for cancellation. Road Runner answered the
complaint, generally denying all allegations and asserting 15
affirmative defenses. In its first affirmative defense, Road Runner
asserted "the parties agreed to arbitrate this dispute and
therefore this matter is not properly before the Superior Court."

In February 2021, O'Connor joined the lawsuit and replaced the
original named Plaintiff with the filing of the FAC. The FAC
included new factual allegations specific to O'Connor, but was
otherwise substantially the same as the original complaint. Road
Runner answered the FAC, and again asserted arbitration as its
first affirmative defense. This time, it added that "the parties
agreed to arbitrate this dispute under the terms and conditions of
the membership, the Plaintiff continues to accept the benefits of
the membership at issue without cancellation and with knowledge of
the terms and conditions, and therefore this matter is not properly
before the Superior Court."

Road Runner then moved to compel O'Connor to arbitrate his claims
individually. It asserted O'Connor had "demonstrative knowledge" of
the loyalty program's online terms and conditions, and the included
arbitration provision, because (1) the 2019 mailer "expressly noted
terms and conditions applied to the membership and were available
online"; (2) "Road Runner pleaded the affirmative defense regarding
arbitration and noted the terms and conditions applied"; and (3)
"O'Connor's attorneys had direct knowledge of the current terms and
conditions," as demonstrated by Road Runner's demand for
arbitration in the pleadings and the attorneys' own website
advertising the class action litigation, which had a link to the
terms and conditions. So Road Runner asserted O'Connor had "imputed
knowledge" of the arbitration provision through his attorneys, and
"implicitly consented" to the arbitration provision by "refusing to
cancel" his membership, even after joining the litigation and
learning of the arbitration provision.

Mr. O'Connor responded he was not bound by the arbitration
provision because the online terms and conditions expressly stated
a customer would be bound by the purchase or use of a membership,
and he had not purchased or used his membership since 2017. He
further asserted Road Runner failed to prove he unambiguously
assented to the arbitration provision, because none of the various
pamphlets Road Runner allegedly handed or mailed to him mentioned
arbitration. Rather, the inclusion of the arbitration provision in
the terms and conditions "hidden deep on one Road Runner webpage"
was not sufficient to establish his unambiguous assent. Nor did his
alleged failure to cancel his membership establish assent to the
arbitration provision; rather, he "went so far as to file a lawsuit
to cancel his membership." Finally, O'Connor disputed Road Runner's
claim that his knowledge of the arbitration provision could be
imputed from his attorneys.

The trial court denied Road Runner's motion to compel arbitration.
It found the evidence demonstrated that O'Connor "was not made
aware of the terms and conditions," or any arbitration agreement
when he signed up for the loyalty program, and the "communications"
O'Connor later received from Road Runner "also did not reference or
include the terms and conditions or any arbitration provision
within those terms and conditions." The court also rejected Road
Runner's argument that O'Connor had imputed knowledge of the
arbitration provision from his attorneys and implicitly consented
to arbitration by refusing to cancel his membership, after joining
the litigation. It explained, O'Connor could not accept the terms
of an agreement that he was not aware of, and Road Runner cited no
authority "for the proposition that knowledge obtained by an
attorney during the course of litigation can somehow be imputed to
the attorney's client for the period of time predating
litigation."

On appeal, Road Runner concedes O'Connor did not have actual or
constructive notice of the arbitration provision. It relies
exclusively on its theory that O'Connor created an implied-in-fact
agreement to arbitrate when he obtained imputed knowledge of the
arbitration provision through his counsel in the course of
litigation and still failed to cancel his membership. And it
contends the trial court erred by not adequately considering
whether O'Connor manifested his assent to the arbitration provision
by failing to cancel his loyalty program membership after joining
the lawsuit.

On its de novo review, the Court of Appeals concludes that Road
Runner has failed to meet its burden of proving the existence of a
valid arbitration agreement. Road Runner's argument fails, for
three reasons.

First, Road Runner provides no authority, nor is the Court of
Appeals aware of any, that applies this general agency principle to
impute an attorney's knowledge of an arbitration provision to a
client for the purpose of compelling arbitration.

Second, an attorney's knowledge is not imputed to a client before
the formation of the attorney-client relationship. O'Connor joined
the lawsuit as the named Plaintiff in January 2021. Road Runner
does not present any evidence O'Connor had any relationship with
his attorneys, or the litigation, before that date. And as the
trial court put it, Road Runner presents no authority for "the
proposition that knowledge obtained by an attorney during the
course of litigation can somehow be imputed to the attorney's
client for the period of time predating litigation."

Third, even if knowledge of the arbitration clause could be imputed
to O'Connor through his attorneys, that is not enough to establish
an agreement to arbitrate was formed. The arbitration provision
appears only in terms and conditions displayed on the company's
website. As this court recently explained, while internet commerce
has exposed courts to many new situations, it has not fundamentally
changed the requirement that mutual manifestation of assent,
whether by written or spoken word or by conduct, is the touchstone
of contract. Road Runner presents no evidence that O'Connor
interacted with its website in any way, at any time, including
after he purportedly gained imputed knowledge of the arbitration
provision through his attorneys.

The Court of Appeals concludes that O'Connor was not presented with
an arbitration provision when he joined the program, or before he
paid the first two renewal fees, nor does Road Runner rely on the
inconspicuous notice of the loyalty program terms and conditions in
the 2019 mailer. Road Runner alleges O'Connor manifested his assent
to be bound by the arbitration provision by failing to cancel his
membership after he joined the lawsuit, and after he paid the most
recent renewal fee. It presents no authority suggesting a litigant
may be bound to an arbitration provision by mere inaction in light
of imputed knowledge of the provision through his attorneys. For
these reasons, Road Runner has not met its burden to prove O'Connor
manifested his assent to be bound by the arbitration provision.

Road Runner also asserts, to the extent the Court of Appeals agrees
O'Connor is bound by the arbitration provision, any further issues
regarding the validity and scope of the arbitration provision must
be delegated to the arbitrator. Because it concludes Road Runner
has not established the existence of a valid agreement to
arbitrate, the Court of Appeals does not need to reach the issue of
delegation of arbitrability.

The order denying Road Runner's motion to compel arbitration is
affirmed. O'Connor is awarded his costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/muh9t4ja from Leagle.com.

The Weitz Law Office and Michael Weitz --
michael@weitzlawoffice.com -- for the Defendants and Appellants.

Blood Hearst & O'Reardon, Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com --
Leslie E. Hurst -- lhurst@bholaw.com -- Thomas J. O'Reardon II --
toreardon@bholaw.com -- Jennifer L. MacPherson --
jmacpherson@bholaw.com; Johnson Fistel, Frank J. Johnson --
frankj@johnsonfistel.com -- and Chase M. Stern --
chases@johnsonfistel.com -- for the Plaintiff and Respondent.


RONIN GALLERY: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ronin Gallery, LLC.
The case is styled as Miriam Cruz, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Ronin Gallery, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05801 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2022).

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

Ronin Gallery -- https://www.roningallery.com/ -- is a leading
Japanese and East Asian art gallery in New York City and home to
the largest collection of 17th to 21st century Japanese prints for
sale in the US and the best of Asia's contemporary talents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


ROSE MILLE INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rose Mille, Inc. The
case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Rose Mille, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08253
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2022).

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

Rose Mille, Inc. -- https://rosemille.com/ -- is a vintage crafts
shop featuring glass glitter, millinery flowers, flower
stamens,craft kits, home decor, jewelry and Victorian scrap.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


RUGER & CO: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Ruger failed to safeguard the
sensitive personally identifiable information of its customers
during a nearly two-year-long data breach that it recently
disclosed, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Mark Jones claims Sturm, Ruger & Company Inc.'s alleged
failure to protect its customer's information during the data
breach was "particularly egregious" considering that the company
sells firearms and exposed shipping and billing addresses.  

Jones argues that criminals who gained unauthorized access to
customers' private information can now "target the homes of firearm
owners" to "steal firearms that they cannot obtain through legal
channels."

In addition to physical addresses, the Ruger data breach exposed
customers' first and last names, email addresses, payment card data
and other sensitive information, according to the Ruger class
action.

Jones claims the Ruger data breach was "engineered and targeted" at
"accessing and exfiltrating" the personal information of its
customers to perpetrate "theft, identity crimes and fraud."

Ruger class action claims company failed to detect data breach for
almost two years
Ruger failed to prevent or detect the data breach for nearly two
years while refusing to take steps to both prevent the breach from
happening or ensure its data systems were safe, the Ruger class
action alleges.

Jones wants to represent a nationwide class of customers who were
impacted by the Ruger data breach, including individuals who were
sent a notice.

Jones claims Ruger is guilty of negligence, unjust enrichment and
breach of implied contract. He demands a jury trial and requests
declaratory and injunctive relief along with an award of actual and
statutory damages for himself and all class members.

In other data breach news, last month, U-Haul International
announced it was the victim of a data breach that exposed the names
and drivers license information of some customers after a hacker
breached one of its customer support portals.

The plaintiff is represented by Joseph P. Guglielmo and Anja Rusi
of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP; Terence R. Coates, Justin C.
Walker and Dylan J. Gould of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC; and
Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC.


The Ruger data breach class action lawsuit is Jones v. Sturm, Ruger
& Company, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01233, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut. [GN]

RUSH SYSTEM: Sued for Disclosing Patient Data to Third Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims that Rush System for Health has
violated the medical privacy rights of its patients by disclosing
their data to third parties without consent.

The 65-page complaint alleges the healthcare provider, who does
business as Rush University System for Health in Chicago, has
violated several state and federal laws by transmitting personally
identifiable patient information to Facebook, Google, and digital
advertising company Bidtellect.

Per the case, the shared patient information includes their status
as a patient and communications with Rush about conditions,
treatments, payments, and doctors. The suit also claims that third
parties can access patients' IP addresses, cookie and device
identifiers, account numbers, URLs and browser fingerprints.

The complaint says that Rush can track patient information when a
consumer interacts with its homepage or the MyChart patient portal.
MyChart is an online platform where patients can access their
medical records and communicate with Rush about "bill payment,
doctors, services, treatments, conditions, appointments," the case
relays.

As the case tells it, Rush has embedded code on its websites to
collect and transmit data about consumers. The complaint alleges
Rush deploys invisible "third party source codes" like Google
Analytics and the Facebook tracking pixel to secretly gather
personally identifiable information.

The suit alleges Rush profits from selling user data to third
parties, who use the valuable information for targeted advertising.
According to the suit:

"Medical information derived from medical providers garner even
more value from the fact that it is not available to third party
data marketing companies because of strict restrictions on provider
disclosures under [the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act], state laws, and provider standards, including
the Hippocratic oath."

The filing charges that Rush System's online privacy policy fails
to inform users that the provider discloses patient data to third
parties. The case claims that Rush falsely assures consumers it
will securely protect any information collected through its website
from outside advertisers.

The complaint alleges Rush's practice of transmitting consumer data
without consent violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(ECPA), which prohibits any person from intentionally intercepting
any electronic communication and disclosing it to an "unintended
recipient."

Further, the case contends that Rush has breached its federal
obligation to protect the confidentiality of its patients. Under
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy
Rule (HIPAA), a medical provider cannot disclose a patient's
personal health information without express written consent.

As for state legislation, the suit alleges Rush has violated the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Act and the Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, both of which are designed
to protect consumers against misleading business practices.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who, during the fullest
period allowed by law, is or was a patient of Rush University
System for Health or any of its affiliates and who accessed Rush's
MyChart patient portal, which caused the transmission of personally
identifiable data and communications to third parties. [GN]

SALLY BEAUTY: Raslavich Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Call
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Raslavich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sally Beauty Supply, LLC, Case No. 157598535 (Fla. 13th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Sept. 16, 2022), is brought
against the Defendant for the Defendant's violations of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act by engaging in unsolicited telephonic
sales calls.

To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff and
the Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's unlawful
conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal
rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue. Through
this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of the Plaintiff individually 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."

The Defendant is a consumer goods retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Fogarty Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simm Associates, Inc.
The case is styled as Nichole Fogarty, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Simm Associates, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01524-JPW (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2022).

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

SIMM Associates -- https://www.simmassociates.com/ -- is a family
owned and operated financial services business assisting clients as
accounts receivable management specialists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott H. Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT H. BERNSTEIN, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway, Ste. 300
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (203) 246-2887
          Email: scott@scottbernsteinlaw.com

SINGTEL OPTUS: Data Breach Class Action Biggest Case in Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mirella Atherton and Eliezer Sanchez-Lasaballett, writing for The
Conversation, report that with the Optus data breach exposing
almost 10 million current and former customers to identity theft,
law firms are circling for what could end up being the biggest --
and most valuable -- class action case in Australian legal
history.

A settlement could well be worth billions, eclipsing the current
record of $494 million paid to 10,000 victims of Victoria's 2009
Black Saturday bushfires.

Two class-action specialists, Maurice Blackburn and Slater &
Gordon, are considering suing, and it's possible others will
follow. (Maurice Blackburn also has another case against Optus on
its books over a 2019 data breach involving 50,000 customers.)

To proceed they'll need to sign up at least seven people -- one of
whom acts as the "representative" or lead plaintiff. This shouldn't
be hard. They'll then need to file a statement of claim for
financial, economic or other loss.

Multiple class actions are possible if those claims pursue
different issues. Or the firms could work together, as they have in
the past.

Things to know about class actions
There have been about 700 class actions in Australia in the past 30
years. Class actions can be pursued through state or federal
courts. Most go to the Federal Court, which has been empowered to
hear class actions since 1992.

Less than 5% of Federal Court actions have progressed to a
judgement. About 60% have ended in a court-approved settlement,
with the balance dismissed or discontinued.

The most common type of class action is by shareholders for loss of
earnings. These account for about a third of Federal Court class
actions.

The biggest shareholder settlement so far is $200 million, paid by
Centro Property Group to almost 6,000 shareholders in 2012 over
misleading and deceptive conduct by Centro's board. This followed
the Australian Securities and Investments Commission successfully
prosecuting Centro (also in the Federal Court).

Class actions account for less than 1% of claims lodged with the
Federal Court, but their scale and complexity means they take a
disproportionate amount of court time, as well as media attention.

Because of their cost, many class actions are funded by third
parties as a type of business venture. This enables the law firms
running the action to sign up plaintiffs on a "no win, no fee". The
litigation funder then takes a share of the settlement (as does the
law firm for its legal fees).

Read more: Regulations needed for litigation funders who can't pay
out when cases fail

According to Australian Law Reform Commission data for settled
cases, the median percentage of any settlement going to plaintiffs
is 57%, with law firms taking 17% and funders taking 22%.

What would a class action against Optus involve?
Based on what is currently known, there are two main ways a class
action (or class actions) could proceed against Optus.

First, it could argue negligence, with the scope of liability
outlined in state or territory legislation. Second, it could argue
breach of privacy, in contravention of the federal Privacy Act, in
the Federal Court.

To succeed in negligence, a court would have to find Optus had a
duty of care to its customers to protect their personal
information, that it breached its duty, and that customers suffered
damage or loss.

Read more: How not to tell customers their data is at risk: the
perils of the Optus approach

To succeed on a breach of privacy, the Federal Court would have to
find that personal information held by Optus was subject to
unauthorised access or disclosure, or lost, and that the company
failed to comply with the "privacy principles" enshrined in the
Privacy Act.

Read more: Optus says it needed to keep identity data for six
years. But did it really?

A second basis for a class action in the Federal Court could be to
argue a breach of the Telecommunications Act. This legislation says
carriers and carriage service providers "must to do their best" to
protect telecommunications networks and facilities from
unauthorised interference or unauthorised access.

What are the precedents?
The closest precedent in Australia to a successful class action for
a mass breach of privacy is a 2019 case in the NSW Supreme court.
This involved a claim by 108 NSW ambulance service employees
against the NSW Health Department.

The employees, represented by the firm Centennial Lawyers, had
their personnel files sold to a personal injury law firm by a
contractor (who was convicted of unlawfully disclosing information
and carried out community service for the crime).

The court ordered NSW Health to pay the sum of $275,000 in
compensation) -- $10,000 for the lead plaintiff and about $2,400
for the others.

How much could the Optus case be worth?
Given the Optus data leak is established, there's a strong basis to
believe a class action would be successful.

If so, a court could award compensatory damages for the time and
cost of replacing identification documents, as well as exemplary
(or punitive) damages, to send a message to corporations handling
citizens' private information.

In determining damages, a court will take into account what efforts
Optus has made to remedy the leak, mitigate the potential impact on
those affected and pay for the costs of replacing drivers'
licences, Medicare cards or passports.

Though the economic loss per customer may be relatively small,
multiplied by the potential class-action pool size -- up to 10
million plaintiffs -- compensatory damages could easily be billions
of dollars, even without exemplary damages.

That makes this a hugely attractive prospect for a law firm or
class-action funder. [GN]

SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Hicke Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SmileDirectClub, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Tom Hicke, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-01477-BEN-AHG (S.D. Cal.,
Sept. 30, 2022).

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

SmileDirectClub, LLC -- https://smiledirectclub.com/ -- designs and
manufactures dental equipment. The Company supplies invisible
aligners and braces to get straight teeth.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SPHINX RANCH: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sphinx Ranch, LLC.
The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sphinx Ranch, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-08378 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2022).

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

Sphinx Ranch -- https://www.sphinxdateranch.com/ -- is a family
owned specialty food gift shop specializing in Arizona grown date
fruits & nuts gifts, locally made food & wine, and date
shakes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUTTER HEALTH: District Council Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sutter Health. The
case is styled as District Council #16 Northern Cal Health &
Welfare Trust Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sutter Health, Case No. MRCV-2022-6 (Okla.
Dist. Ct., Canadian Cty., Sept. 29, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Miscellaneous Receipts - Civil: Other
Foreign Subpoena."

Sutter Health -- https://www.sutterhealth.org/ -- is a family of
doctors and hospitals, serving more than 100 communities in
Northern California.[BN]

TMC GENERAL CONSTRUCTION: Montes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMC General
Construction Inc., et al. The case is styled as Edgar Antonio
Arechiga Montes, Leopold Perez Castellanos, Guillermo Luna Chavez,
Omar Arechiga Montes, on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TMC General Construction Inc., Does 1–10, Case No.
34-2022-00327476-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept.
29, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil."

TMC General Construction, Inc. -- https://tmcgcinc.com/ -- is a
family-owned framing and drywall construction company based in
Sacramento, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
          Phone: 213-381-9988
          Fax: 213-381-9989
          Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com

TRACY ANDERSON MIND: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tracy Anderson Mind
And Body, LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Tracy Anderson
Mind And Body, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08403 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1,
2022).

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

Tracy Anderson -- https://tracyanderson.com/ -- is the leader of
the health and wellness industry and Creator of the Tracy Anderson
Method, offering fitness DVDs, online workouts and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRAVELING TIKES: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Traveling Tikes, Inc.
The case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Traveling Tikes, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-08384 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2022).

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

Traveling Tikes, Inc. -- https://travelingtikes.com/ -- offers the
best selection of baby gear and supplies.[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


TSUNAMI INC: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, OT Wage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jordyn Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TSUNAMI, INCORPORATED, and JOSEPH KOVERA, Case No.
2:22-cv-00283 (N.D. Ind., Sept. 30, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, or in the alternative
the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Indiana Minimum
Wage Act as a result of the Defendant's policy and practice of
failing to pay proper minimum wage and overtime compensation under
the FLSA and the IMWA.

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff the applicable minimum
wage for all hours worked. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff
and other Dancers an hourly or salary rate. The Defendant did not
pay the Plaintiff and other Dancers any wage at all. The Plaintiff
and other Dancers received tips from Defendant's customers. The
Plaintiff and other Dancers were required to share their tips with
the Defendant, the DJ and the "house mom," and other employees who
did not "customarily and regularly receive tips." The tips which
the Plaintiff and other Dancers were allowed to keep constituted
the entirety of their pay. The Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in at
least some weeks while employed by the Defendant within the past
three years. The Plaintiff and other Dancers are entitled to 1.5x
their regular hourly rate for hours worked over 40 each week, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed at the Defendant's club as a Dancer from
2018 until the present.

Tsunami does business as Industrial Strip, a club in Hammond,
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
          400 North St. Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (214) 346-5909
          Email: matthew@foresterhaynie.com

               - and -

          Sean Short, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AK 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          Email: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


TYSON FOODS: No Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that for the second
time in the last few weeks, a would-be securities class action has
apparently died because no adequate investor emerged to lead the
case.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James Cho of Brooklyn refused on Sept. 30 to
appoint two Tyson Foods Inc shareholders who claimed combined
losses of less than $325 -- yes $325! -- as lead plaintiffs in a
prospective class action accusing the company of misleading
investors about Tyson's ability to operate its meat-packing plants
safely during COVID. Cho said that the investors' losses were too
small to give them a meaningful stake in the outcome of the
litigation, a requirement for lead plaintiffs under 1995's Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Cho did not dismiss the case but because time has run out for
another investor to step up as a lead plaintiff candidate, it seems
unlikely that the litigation can proceed as a class action. The
magistrate suggested as much in his ruling, noting that individual
investors are still entitled to pursue their own claims.

The Rosen Law Firm, which represents the failed lead plaintiff
candidates and sought to be named lead counsel for shareholders,
did not respond to my query about Cho's ruling and the law firm's
plans for the case.

The new ruling repeatedly cited a Sept. 12 decision from U.S.
District Judge Roanne Mann of Brooklyn who refused to appoint a
Credit Suisse Group AG shareholder with a claimed loss of $672 to
lead a securities class action alleging that the bank failed to
warn investors about the risk of its portfolio of loans to Russian
oligarchs.

As I told you last month, Mann said Congress' primary objective
when it established a regimen for picking a lead plaintiff in the
securities litigation reform act was to assure that investors,
rather than shareholders' lawyers, controlled cases. The judge said
she could not be sure that an investor with only a miniscule
interest in the outcome of the case could be relied upon to stand
up for shareholders' interests.

Cho offered identical analysis in his Tyson decision, writing that
the two proposed lead plaintiffs in the case "have failed to
persuade this court that they have sufficient interest in the
litigation to 'vigorously' pursue the class claims and adequately
represent the interests of class members."

What's especially notable about the Tyson and Credit Suisse lead
plaintiff rulings is that defendants in both cases lobbied hard
against the proposed lead plaintiffs. Typically, as you know,
debate over proposed lead shareholders takes place among
shareholder firms representing competing candidates. But in both
the Tyson and Credit Suisse cases there was no competition for the
lead plaintiff appointment. Each case featured only one prospective
lead plaintiff and one prospective lead counsel firm.

Those firms -- Rosen in the Tyson case and Pomerantz in the Credit
Suisse litigation -- argued that defendants have no business
meddling in the lead shareholder selection process. In a letter to
Cho last October, after moving for the appointment of the two
investors with minimal losses, Phillip Kim of the Rosen Law Firm
asserted that the plain text of the securities reform act allows
only class members -- not defendants -- to oppose lead plaintiff
motions.

Kim subsequently cited a March 2022 decision in Yang v. Trust for
Advised Portfolios, in which Brooklyn federal magistrate Marcia
Henry declined to address defense concerns about the standing of a
prospective lead plaintiff because, Henry said, only shareholders
are entitled to offer evidence undermining presumptive lead
plaintiffs.

But Tyson counsel from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer insisted that
securities fraud defendants have a right and a responsibility to
speak up if a proposed lead shareholder is not an adequate class
representative.

"When a lead plaintiff application is unopposed, as here,
submissions by defendants are welcomed and encouraged, given the
PSLRA's aim of avoiding lawyer-driven litigation," wrote Tyson
counsel Mary Eaton of Freshfields in a letter brief to Cho. The
lead plaintiff selection process, Tyson said, works best when
courts have enough information to test the adequacy of proposed
candidates, regardless of whether that information comes from
defendants or rival plaintiffs' firms.

Indeed, Tyson managed to block a previous lead plaintiff candidate
before defeating the Rosen firm's most recent proposed lead
shareholders. Last year, the Rosen firm moved for a private
investment firm, H. Fried Canada Inc, to lead the class action,
asserting losses of more than $21,000. Tyson's defense lawyers dug
into the investment firm's trading records and concluded that the
fund's trades during the class period appeared to have been based
on options contracts entered before Tyson's allegedly misleading
statements about COVID preparedness. The investment firm,
Freshfields argued at a hearing in August 2021, therefore could not
claim to have relied on allegedly fraudulent representations and
could not serve as a lead plaintiff.

After that hearing, the Rosen firm withdrew the investment fund's
lead plaintiff motion. Cho gave the law firm several weeks to
propose a different candidate. On the last day before time ran out,
Rosen moved for the appointment of the two investors asserting
losses of less than $325.

Tyson's lawyers said that Rosen's failure to propose more
convincing candidates was evidence "that this action constitutes
precisely the sort of lawyer-driven strike suit that Congress meant
to eradicate under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act."

Cho did not go as far as Mann -- the judge who refused to appoint
lead plaintiffs in last month's Credit Suisse ruling -- in casting
doubt about merits of the case based on shareholders' failure to
step up to lead the litigation. But Tyson reaps the same benefits
from Cho's ruling as Credit Suisse from the Mann decision: The
company is spared the time and expense of litigating a fraud class
action.

For securities defendants, the message of the two rulings is clear:
The payoff for opposing questionable lead plaintiff candidates can
be well worth the effort. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Discrimination Lawsuit Granted Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Cowing, writing for Spaceref, reports that a racial
discrimination class action lawsuit against NASA made one giant
leap forward when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) granted class certification to impacted employees. The
plaintiffs allege that NASA discriminated against its Black and
Asian American employees in salary grades 13-15 (generally
professionals and middle-level managers), giving them much lower
performance appraisal ratings on average than white peers across
all of NASA's centers.

Performance review data obtained by the plaintiffs and analyzed by
experts show the racial rating disparities are statistically
significant, meaning it's extremely unlikely the racial gaps
happened by chance.

"Any time we see a significant racial gap in employee evaluations,
that's a massive red flag and indicates that racial bias --
intentional or not -- is likely at play," said Michael Lieder of
Mehri & Skalet PLLC, an attorney representing the plaintiffs.
"Flaws in NASA's employee evaluation system have potentially caused
over 2,000 Black and Asian American NASA employees to experience
racial discrimination impacting evaluations, pay, promotions, and
more, and NASA must rectify that. As this complaint moves forward,
we expect to hear from even more current and former employees whose
evaluations may have been impacted by racial bias."

The complaint was filed in 2013 with the EEOC under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and encompasses claims beginning in
2008. The EEOC finally granted class certification on September 30,
2022, to two classes: all African American employees in General
Schedule grades 13-15 who received less than a "Distinguished"
rating on their annual performance since October 2012, and all
Asian American employees fitting the same criteria since January
2013. Class members' claims reach back to 2008.

NASA has until November 10 to appeal the decision. The decision can
be read here.

The plaintiffs are represented by Cyrus Mehri, Michael Lieder, and
Ezra Bronstein of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC and Jessie Weber, Anisha
Queen, and Sharon Krevor-Weisbaum of Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP.
[GN]

UNITED STATES: Provost Umphrey Named Class Counsel in Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge Elaine D. Kaplan of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
on Oct. 3 named Provost Umphrey Law Firm the interim class counsel
for Paula Allen, et al. v. The United States of America, the second
class action on behalf of nurse practitioners and physicians'
assistants employed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for
unpaid overtime.

The first lawsuit, Stephanie Mercier, et al., Plaintiffs v. The
United States of America, settled for $160 million. The lawsuit,
filed on December 28, 2012, alleged that 3,200 class members were
induced to work overtime to update patients' electronic health
records and monitor and respond to patient-related notifications in
the VA's Computerized Patient Record System for which they were not
paid.

The settlement, which is one of the largest ever reached in an
overtime case involving federal employees, provided an average
recovery of $50,000 to class members.

"It was made clear to us that even after the government paid the
settlement, the VA was still taking advantage of their employees
and inducing them to work overtime without compensation," says
Provost Umphrey attorney Mike Hamilton, lead counsel for the class
action. "As long as these hardworking men and women are being
exploited, we are going to be here to represent them."

So far, over a thousand nurse practitioners and physician
assistants have joined the second class action in hope of
recovering their unpaid compensation. Many of the class members
were previously members of the first class action.

"We are picking up a lot of new clients that were not involved with
the first class action as well," says Provost Umphrey attorney Guy
Fisher, co-lead counsel. "Nurses and practitioners saw that their
co-workers received compensation for their unpaid overtime from the
first settlement, and they are seeking that same recourse. We are
proud to hopefully provide them with another successful
settlement."

The case is Paula Allen, et al. v. The United States of America,
Cause No. 1:22-cv-00400-EDK in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

               About Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP

For over 50 years, our firm's mission has remained to seek justice
for those most in need – those who have suffered harm or loss due
to the wrongful conduct of others. Our attorneys fight for our
clients nationwide with offices in Beaumont, Texas, and Nashville,
Tennessee. We continue to be one of the most successful trial law
firms in the nation by remaining Hard-Working Lawyers for
Hard-Working People. To learn more, visit
http://www.provostumphrey.com.[GN]

UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: Certification Denied in Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Skylar Rispens, writing for MontanaRightNow.com, reports that a
U.S. District Judge denied class action certification in a
sex-based discrimination lawsuit against the University of Montana
involving over 70 current and former employees on Oct. 3.

Through a series of legal tests on current precedent, Chief Judge
Brian Morris ultimately decided that the plaintiffs did not meet
the requirements to grant them class status in terms of typicality
and that they did not demonstrate the university's liability "is
subject to common proof."

"Even after a year of litigation, there continues to be no evidence
that supports the Plaintiffs' class claims," said Dave Kuntz, the
university's director of strategic communications. "This holds true
despite the months of discovery and litigation that Plaintiffs have
pursued."

Chief Judge Morris' decision was made without prejudice, meaning
the plaintiffs could make another motion for class action status in
the future.

"The court believes it appropriate to permit plaintiffs 'a second
bite at the class-certification apple,' given the importance of the
issues in this case and the previously discussed evidentiary
difficulties discrimination cases present," Morris wrote in
conclusion.

The plaintiffs' legal team, Hillary Carls and Sherine Blackford of
Blackford Carls P.C. in Bozeman, said they are preparing their
case.

"On behalf of our 16 clients, we look forward to their day in
court," the attorneys said in a statement to the Missoulian.
"Regarding the Court's recent order discussing the women who are
not named plaintiffs in this case, we are pleased that the Court
has given us clear guidance in the early stages of this litigation
on the evidence needed and the path to advocating for these absent
women if and when we request class certification in the future."

The Title IX suit was initially filed last August by three former
and one current university employee and alleges that UM and the
Montana University System fostered and encouraged a culture that
resulted in unequal treatment of female employees. The original
plaintiffs in the suit include Catherine Cole, Barbara Koostra,
Mary-Ann Sontag Bowman and Rhondie Voorhees.

Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sex.

Within about two weeks of the filing, 18 more women joined with
similar allegations of gender discrimination and harassment. At a
hearing in June, the plaintiffs' lawyers said they had identified
more than 70 other current or former UM employees as eligible
class-action members.

Following the June hearing, 12 more women formally joined the suit,
bringing the total number of plaintiffs to 16 current and former
employees.

"Looking forward, the university remains confident that the
allegations are not supported by facts, that class certification
will not be granted in the future and that the claims themselves
lack merit," Kuntz said.

"The university continues to be committed to empowering its
employees and creating opportunity for all," Kuntz added. "This
includes the proactive diversity, equity and inclusion work
embraced by the university."

Since Seth Bodnar took the reins as president of the university,
78% of campus promotions have been female employees and a majority
of new hires have also been women, according to Kuntz. [GN]

VANGUARD EQUITIES: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Vanguard
Equities LLC sent spam text messages to consumers' cell phones
without their consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Privacy Act, a new federal class action lawsuit said.

Plaintiff Terry Fabricant said in a complaint filed on Oct. 4 in
the US District Court for the Central District of California that
Vanguard Equities used its SMS Blasting platform to send
promotional text messages to him without his consent.

The SMS Blasting platform is an automatic telephone dialing system
within the meaning of the TCPA, and contains computer code allowing
it to make thousands of calls to consumers in seconds. [GN]



VICTORIA GOLD: $925,000 Settlement in Shareholders' Suit Reached
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrie Crawford at Yukon News reports that an out-of-court
settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit brought
against a Yukon mining company, Victoria Gold in May 2021.

The claim alleged shareholders were misled by representations in
the company's disclosure documents regarding mine operations,
volume of production and costs of production at Victoria Gold's
Eagle mine near Mayo.

The settlement agreement details can be found on the website of KND
Complex Litigation, a law company that advocates for integrity in
capital markets in Canada. The settlement agreement restricts
either party from commenting or issuing press releases on the
matter, though information can be found on both Victoria Gold's
website and the law company's site, knd.law. Victoria Gold
disclosed the lawsuit on its website when it was first filed.

The proposed settlement amount is $925,000, including lawyers' fees
and taxes.

The class action includes all people who purchased shares of
Victoria Gold in specific share offerings in 2020, unless they
specifically opt out.

Those people have three choices: they can do nothing and remain
included in the settlement agreement; they can object to the terms
in the settlement agreement by Nov. 3; or opt out of the settlement
agreement by Nov. 8.

In the settlement agreement Victoria Gold does not admit any wrong
doing, and the agreement clearly acknowledges that the case was
concluded to avoid the time, risk and expense of continuing with
the litigation. [GN]

VISA INC: Faces Suit in Competition Tribunal Over Unlawful Charges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Neville, writing for Bdaily News, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been served against Visa and Mastercard at the
UK's specialist competition tribunal on behalf of a large number of
claimants seeking damages for allegedly unlawful charges.

Harcus Parker, a London based commercial litigation law firm
specialising in group litigation, competition litigation and class
action lawsuits, has brought the corporate card claim at the
Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), the UK's specialist judicial
body for hearing competition cases.

The class action seeks compensation for UK businesses, which were
charged Multilateral Interchange Fees (MIFs) for accepting payments
using corporate credit cards, and credit and debit cards from
overseas visitors. The CAT has published the claim on its website.

Harcus Parker claims that Visa and Mastercard have forced banks to
agree to a level of MIFs set by the two "giants", which are
"anti-competitive and unlawful".

Jeremy Robinson, competition litigation partner at Harcus Parker,
commented: "We want to make sure that businesses across the UK
economy are properly compensated. We are making a stand against
unlawful interchange fees, which should be abolished.

"Both the Court of Justice of the EU and the United Kingdom Supreme
Court have condemned this practice for consumer credit and debit
cards. The UK courts should now clamp down on commercial card and
inter-regional fees.

"UK businesses in the travel, hospitality, retail and luxury
sectors are particularly hurt by Mastercard and Visa's multilateral
interchange fees."

Multilateral Interchange Fees make up the greater part of the
service charges levied by banks on businesses when customers pay by
card. Typically, for every GBP100 spent, up to GBP1.80 is charged
on payments made by corporate cards, or cards used by overseas
visitors, costs which are borne by companies throughout the UK.

Since 2015, EU law capped Multilateral Interchange Fees at 0.3
percent on consumer credit card transactions, and 0.2 percent for
consumer debit cards. However, this cap did not apply to corporate
credit and debit cards or for inter-regional transactions. These
sales have continued to attract fees of up to 1.8 percent per
transaction.

The class action is open to all businesses, including large
international companies and local businesses, as well as some
non-UK companies. UK businesses with an annual pre-Covid turnover
of GBP100m or more are invited to opt-in to the claim. Businesses
with a turnover under this threshold will be automatically included
unless they choose to opt out. [GN]

WEALTHSIMPLE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clare O'Hara and Temur Durrani, writing for The Globe and Mail,
report that a proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed against
two financial technology companies, alleging their online trading
platforms charged millions of dollars in hidden fees for clients
while advertising commission-free trades for cryptocurrencies.

Quebec-based law firm LPC Avocat Inc. has filed the lawsuit against
Toronto-based Wealthsimple Technologies Inc. and Montreal-based
Shakepay Inc., claiming both companies failed to disclose the true
cost of their services to customers. The suit, which is seeking
damages of $10-million each from Wealthsimple and Shakepay, also
alleges that both companies bait customers to use their trading
platforms by using terms such as commission-free or zero fee
commissions.

"I think these companies took advantage of what many have called a
crypto gold rush during the pandemic," Joey Zukran, a lawyer with
LPC Avocat, told The Globe and Mail. "Do you think Walmart would
ever say it has no hidden fees to compete with another grocer like
that? Shakepay and Wealthsimple need to be held accountable."

The class action has not been certified and none of the allegations
have been proven in court.

Online bank challenger Wealthsimple became one of Canada's most
valuable private technology companies after it raised $750-million
last year, giving it a $5-billion valuation. It first began to
offer trading in bitcoin and ethereum in 2020. That has now
expanded to include more than 50 cryptocurrencies.

Wealthsimple spokesperson Rachael Factor said the legal action has
no merit and the company will defend itself on all allegations.

"We have always been transparent about what we charge for our
services – that's our commitment to our clients," Ms. Factor
wrote in an e-mailed statement.

Sophia Cote, head of communications at Shakepay, issued a similar
statement. She said the company has "always put transparency at the
forefront of everything we do."

"That's a commitment we've made to ourselves and our customers,"
Ms. Cote wrote in an e-mail. "This legal action has no merit and we
will fight it before the courts."

Wealthsimple cuts 13% of workforce as tech job woes deepen

Mr. Zukran says the "deceptive" practice of advertising for their
crypto exchange trading services as commission-free by each company
is contrary to Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, and both companies
should have to cease marketing as a result.

"We looked at all the big crypto players as a whole that operate in
Canada, and found that they don't advertise the same as
Wealthsimple and Shakepay, which falsely represent that they are
free of any commission fees," Mr. Zukran said in an interview.
"This gives them a huge and unfair advantage over the companies
because those other players are not able to match their false
promises."

According to court documents, lead plaintiff Shay Abicidan -- a
Montreal resident who invested in cryptocurrencies on both trading
platforms -- claims Wealthsimple and Shakepay keep their bid/ask
trading spread "intentionally large." The bid/ask spread is the
price difference between what a buyer will pay for a
cryptocurrency, and the lowest price a seller is willing to accept.
The ask price ultimately determines the price of the trade. The
lawsuit said another trading platform, Kraken, had a typical $5 to
$10 spread on cryptocurrency trades on Sept. 29, 2022, whereas
Shakepay's spread was more than $600.

During a bitcoin trade, Mr. Abicidan found his balance dropped 1.2
per cent as a result of fees.

While Wealthsimple does not charge any commission fee to trade, Mr.
Abicidan said he was paying an inflated bid/ask spread for his
cryptocurrency on the platform as well as an additional
1.5-per-cent to 2-per-cent "operations fee" at Wealthsimple. That
fee is posted on their website.

"If Wealthsimple inflates the ask price by 2 per cent or more in
some cases, it is simply baking its commission fee into its
spread," Mr. Zukran said in court documents.

While LPC Avocat has filed the class action in Montreal, Mr. Zukran
has requested a national class action. That means if certified, the
suit would include investors anywhere in Canada who have used
Wealthsimple or Shakepay. [GN]

WEST VIRGINIA: Co Commissions React to Southern Regional Jail Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Moore, writing for WVVA, reports that WVVA News shared some
of the evidence presented along with a federal class action lawsuit
claiming to show inhumane living conditions at Southern Regional
Jail. On top of a number of videos purporting to show inmate cells
without water, a correctional officer turned over an internal memo
showing nearly 40 of the jail's 120 cells without running water in
November of 2021.

The seven county commissions which pay for the housing of inmates
were also named in the suit. Attorneys for the inmates and
correctional officers said the county commissions are required to
be included in the suit under the way state code is written.

However, at the Oct. 4 meeting of the Raleigh County Commission,
Commissioner Greg Duckworth said he feels confident the commission
will be spared from damages under the current set-up with the
state. He said the county commissions contracted the responsibility
of the jails to the state over this very issue in the early 1990s,
a time when county commissions were getting hit with suit after
suit because they could not meet the federal standards.

"The regional jail idea came about in the early 90s to insulate
counties from these kinds of lawsuits," he said.

"Our position is we pay a monthly jail bill and we are insulated
from the rest because that's an issue taken on by the Southern
Regional Jail and the state."

As lawyers on the suit debate whether the jail is adequately funded
moving forward, counties across the state are sharing their own
struggles to foot the bill with Amendment Two on the ballot this
November.

"The jail bill is a hot button issue for every county. We're facing
challenges across the state with amendment two coming up and whose
going to pay the jail bill. We spend 150-180,000 a month on the
jail bill so we're paying attention to every dollar at this point,"
said Commissioner Duckworth, who would also like for cities to pick
up their share of the bill.

Amendment two would allow state lawmakers to take nearly 30 percent
of income on personal property taxes from counties and, in turn,
offer inventory and equipment tax exemptions to encourage new and
existing businesses. [GN]

[*] 1st Annual Complex Litigation Ethics Conference - Register Now
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Center For Litigation and Courts, UC Hastings Law, and
Huntington National Bank invite you to the first annual Complex
Litigation Ethics Conference. This program will bring together
luminaries in the field -- judges, scholars, lawyers, and others --
to discuss a cutting-edge topic that is of critical importance to
our justice system.

The event will be held on campus and virtually on Saturday, October
22, 2022, from 8:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. Pacific Time at UC Hastings
College of the Law in San Francisco. 7.0 Ethics CLE Credits are
available.

Expert panelists will discuss important industry topics including:

     * Adapting Ethics to Complex Litigation
     * Ethics in Funding Complex Litigation
     * Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity in Complex Litigation
     * Communications with Absent Class Members

The program will also include a special presentation of an
inaugural Annual Award for Excellence in Ethics in Complex
Litigation. The honoree will be recognized for accomplishments in
promoting ethics in class actions, MDLs, or other complex
litigation.

Capacity is limited, so please register today at
https://bit.ly/3rpycs7

View the agenda at https://bit.ly/3Cv2tMv


[*] Surge of Wiretapping Class Action Suits in Calif. Discussed
---------------------------------------------------------------
dentons.com reports that California courts have experienced a surge
in class action filings pursuant to the California Invasion of
Privacy Act ("CIPA"), California Penal Code Sections 630 et seq.,
the California analogue to the federal Wiretapping Act. These
latest filings target the "live chat" functionalities commonly
installed on customer facing websites. This Article describes this
latest wave of "wiretapping" class actions and provides guidance
for website operators on steps to be taken now to minimize the risk
of being targeted with such a lawsuit.

                         CIPA Background

CIPA was enacted in 1967 to address a host of privacy concerns,
including traditional forms of wiretapping, eavesdropping, and
non-consensual telephone call recording. For decades CIPA was
rarely, if ever, applied in the class action context. That all
changed in the late 2000s. A 2006 California Supreme Court opinion
(Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006))
dramatically expanded CIPA's geographic reach. In addition, the
plaintiffs' bar also took note of the mandatory, "$5,000 per
violation" civil penalty provision, which eliminates a key hurdle
to class certification: the need to prove causation, an actual
injury, and compensatory damages, on an individual, plaintiff by
plaintiff basis.

In the aftermath of Kearney, California court saw a virtual
onslaught of CIPA class action filings. That initial wave was
brought under the call-recording provisions of CIPA Section 632 and
632.7, against business that recorded inbound or outbound telephone
calls without the consent of the call participant. In 2014, Dentons
prevailed in the first class certification ruling to reach the
California Court of Appeal (Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers
Protection Corp., 223 Cal. App. 4th 1454 (Feb. 21, 2014). The
Hataishi Court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for class
certification, agreeing with Dentons that individualized issues of
"consent" would render class certification unmanageable. The
Hataishi opinion substantially stemmed the tide of Section
632/632.7 call recording filings and gave defendants significant
leverage in settlement negotiations.

CIPA section 631's "wiretapping" prohibition
This year has seen a new surge in CIPA class actions, this time
under Section 631, titled "Wiretapping." In pertinent part, that
Section makes it unlawful for any person to

"intentionally tap[], or make[] any unauthorized connection, . . .
with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable," or;
"willfully and without the consent of all parties to the
communication, or in any unauthorized manner, read[], or attempt[]
to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message,
report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing
over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received
at any place within this state."
Unlike its federal counterpart, CIPA provides for a "$5,000 per
violation" statutory penalty, with no requirement to prove actual
damages.

In 2020, the Ninth Circuit directly addressed allegations of
wiretapping in the context of website communications, albeit not
involving chat communications. See In re Facebook, Inc. Internet
Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020). In that action,
Facebook users filed suit under both CIPA Section 631 and the
federal Wiretapping Act, alleging that Facebook improperly used
plug-ins to track logged-out users' browsing histories when they
visited third-party websites and then compiled the browsing
histories into personal profiles that were sold to advertisers. A
key question was whether Facebook was a "party" to those
communications and therefore covered by the "party exemption" from
liability, which provides, in essence, that a party cannot
"wiretap" its own communications, such as customer communications
with a company's own website.

As a matter of first impression, the Ninth Circuit held that the
simultaneous, unknown duplication and forwarding of so-called "GET
requests" made to a third-party web page's server do not qualify
for the "party exemption." The Facebook opinion emphasized two
basic principles of wiretapping jurisprudence: (1) that only third
parties can "wiretap" communications, and not the actual parties to
the communication; and (2) that to qualify as a wiretap, the "tap"
must occur simultaneously, in real time (as opposed to the
recording of a website communication that is only later transmitted
to a third party).

Not long after the Ninth Circuit's Facebook opinion, a series of
Section 631 wiretapping class actions were filed, directed at the
use of "session replay" software, which enables a company to record
and visually play back a user's session on its website. Several of
these "session replay" lawsuits were challenged at the pleading
stage. The resulting district court rulings confirmed that, under
the "party exemption," a website operator cannot be liable for
"tapping its own wire" - i.e., tapping communications between
customers and the company's own website with "session replay"
technology. See, e.g., Graham v. Noom, Inc., 533 F. Supp. 3d 823,
831 (N.D. Cal. 2021).

However, one federal district court carved out an important
exception to this principle.  In Saleh v. Nike, Inc., 562 F. Supp.
3d 503 (C.D. Cal. 2021), the district court held that, to the
extent a third-party vendor (e.g., the provider of the session
replay software) has simultaneous, real time access to a customer's
website communications, without the customer's consent, that
third-party vendor cannot avail itself of the "party exemption"
rule. Moreover, while the the Saleh court confirmed that the
website operator could not be directly liable for a Section 631
wiretapping violation, the court allowed a claim against the
website operator to proceed under the theory that the operator was
"aiding and abetting" the software vendor's direct violation. Id.
at 520-21.

The new wave of "live chat" class actions
Perhaps emboldened by the Saleh Court's permissive treatment of
aiding and abetting liability, in 2022 several plaintiff class
action law firms began filing CIPA Section 631 lawsuits directed at
the "live chat" feature prevalent on many customer-facing websites.
Like the "session replay" lawsuits, these actions allege that a
third party vendor (the provider of the chat functionality) has
simultaneous, real time access to the chat communications, without
the website user's knowledge or consent. These lawsuits further
allege that the website operator is "aiding and abetting" the
third-party vendor's Section 631 violation.

What this means for website operators
To the extent website operators incorporate "live chat"
applications into their site, they should audit that functionality
to determine whether, as if often the case, a third party vendor
has simultaneous, real-time access to those chat communications. If
so, operators should ensure that this functionality is adequately
disclosed up front to website users in a manner that qualifies as
the user's implied consent. These disclosures should be conspicuous
under federal and state standards, particularly given plaintiffs'
arguments that they may have used a website's chat function prior
to noticing - or affirmatively agreeing to - a website's terms and
conditions. See, e.g., Johnson v. Blue Nile, Inc., 2021 WL 1312771,
at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2021).

If you or your company would like more information about CIPA, and
how it may impact your operations, Dentons' team of Privacy and
Cybersecurity litigation and regulatory lawyers and professionals
is ready to help. From data-mapping to cybersecurity risk
assessments, our cross-practice team is well suited to provide
guidance on compliance efforts or to assist with your litigation
needs. With rare depth in this area, Dentons is well-equipped to
hit the ground running. [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 ***