/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221102.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, November 2, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 213

                            Headlines

160 ADAMS AVE: Gallego Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
99 CENTS: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to March 22, 2023
ALCON LABORATORIES: Alexandre Files Mislabeling Suit Over Eyedrops
ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Cevasco Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
ALLIANT CREDIT: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over NSF Fees

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Status Hearing Rescheduled to Nov. 16
ANGEL'S CARE: Allen Suit Seeks to Certify Caregiver Class
ARGO GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
AVX CORPORATION: Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Dec. 22
BANZAI STEAKHOUSE: Tung Seeks Conditional Class Certification

BECTON AND DICKINSON: Faces Aguila Suit Over Unpaid Wages
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand Case Tossed
BMW NA: Niculescu & Avic Voluntarily Dismissed as Named Plaintiffs
BP EXPLORATION: Bids for Summary Judgment in Arrington Suit Granted
BP EXPLORATION: Bids for Summary Judgment in McInnis Suit Granted

BRITAX CHILD: Coleman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
BROCK PIERCE: Opposition to Class Status in Rowan Suit Due Nov. 18
CABELA'S LLC: Calvert Sues Over Wiretapping of Website Visitors
CANADA: French-Language Chapter Launched in Discrimination Suit
CASH EXPRESS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Adams Says

CATHOLIC CHARITIES: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Cawley Says
CENTURYLINK INC: Bultemeyer Seeks to Certify Class Action
CHEMOURS CO: Appeal on Class Certification Ruling Pending
CHEMOURS CO: Faces Drinking Water Contamination Suit in Alabama
CHEMOURS CO: PFAS Contamination Suit Removed in Federal Court

CIRCLE K: Cal. App. Affirms Judgment of Dismissal in Limon Suit
COLHOC LIMITED: Faces Conneran Suit Over Illlegal Sales Calls
COMPU-LINK CORP: Dancy-Wilkins Alleges Subservicing Violations
EAST NORWICH BAGELS: Ponce Sues Over Cooks' Unpaid Overtime Wages
EQUIFAX INC: Discloses Subscribers' Identities, Guider-Shaw Says

ESTEE LAUDER: Castelaz Sues Over Illegal Biometric Info Retention
EVOLVE VACATION: Chattopadhyay Sues Over Discriminatory Practices
FCA US: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Sharp Suit Over Engine Defect
FERRARI NORTH: Bid to Dismiss Rose Suit Over Brake Defect Granted
GARRETT MOTION: Consolidated Suit Reassigned to Judge Rochon

GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Class Settlement in Valdez Suit Wins Final OK
GREAT CHINA RESTAURANT: Florentino Sues Over Workers' Unpaid Wages
GROUP HEALTH: Stipulated Order Modifying Class Cert Sched Entered
ILLINOIS: Judgment as Matter of Law in Phillips v. Hulett Denied
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Dundas Files Suit Over Share Price Drop

KA WAH TRADING: Cintron Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
KEYBANK NATIONAL: Martins Seek Centralization of 6 Suits to W.D. Pa
KIA AMERICA: Spores Files Suit Over Defective Vehicles
LABOR SOURCE: Faces Cox Suit Over Manual Laborers' Unpaid Wages
LH MERCANTILE: Anthony Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics

LINDE INC: Evangelista Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
LULIFAMA.COM LLC: Pop Sues Over Undisclosed Paid Advertising
MDL 2873: Wheedleton Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
MDL 2913: Aberdeen School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Jefferson Davis Cty. Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis

META PLATFORMS: Tracks Users' Online Activity, Radonsky Claims
MGM RESORTS: Lucas Suit Seeks to Certify Plan Beneficiary Class
NAVY FEDERAL: Wilson Sues Over Fraudulent Money Transfer System
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Antirust Suits Summary Judgment Set for 2023
NY DESSERT: Faces Kerdniyom Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.

PAYCOR INC: Terry Seeks Court-Authorized Notice for FLSA Class
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Passman, et al., File Class Certification Bid
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Lemmon Seeks to Certify Indigent Persons Class
PIES INC: Dumitrascu Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Bid to Amend Judgment in United Food Suit Denied

PRINCESS HOUSE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lawal Claims
PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Bid to Amend Talarico's Class Definition Nixed
QUICK BOX: Tan Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Adames Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
SALESFORCE.COM INC: Suit Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: BART Faces Chavez Discrimination Class Action
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces Class Action Over Virtual Slot Machines
SCRIBE OPCO: Settles Class Action Over COVID-Based Layoff Notice
SIG SAUER: Scheduling Order Entered in Glassock Class Suit
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Cox Class Action

STRIDE INC: Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit Under Appeal
SYNTER RESOURCE: Discloses Consumers' Financial Info, Garber Says
TAYLOR MORRISON: Appeals Court Decision on Homeowners' Suit
TCP HOT: Delcid, et al., Seek to Initially Certify Class Settlement
TESLA INC: Jury Trial on Twitter Post Suit Set for Jan. 1, 2023

TESLA INC: Trial on Award-Related Suit Set for Nov.14-18
TJX COMPANIES: Faces Barrett Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing to January 2023
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Info Production Dispute in Wollam Suit Resolved
TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Info Production Dispute in Phan Suit Settled

TULSA COUNTY, OK: Feltz Suit Seeks to Certify Detainee Class
WALT DISNEY: E.K. Sues Over Restrictive Park Reservation System
YES NAKED: Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
ZAZZLE INC: Illegally Records Users' Website Visits, Says Suit

                            *********

160 ADAMS AVE: Gallego Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
NATALY GALLEGO, JAVIER A. PEREZ, RAMON ANTONIO PORTILLO, JHEINDY
ARACELY SERRANO, ANDRES PUERTO NOVOA, and YAMILETH RAMIREZ LARA, on
behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
160 ADAMS AVE RESTAURANT GROUP CORP., dba CAPICU RESTAURANT, and
ANGELO BRAVO, and ERIC SEDA, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-06253 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid spread of hours premiums, liquidated damages
and statutory penalties, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention
Act.

The Plaintiffs were previously employed by the Defendants to work
at their restaurant known as "Capicu."

160 Adams Ave Restaurant Group Corp. is a New York-based domestic
business corporation doing business as Capicu Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com

99 CENTS: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to March 22, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALVADOR AQUINO, SUSAN
FORD, MONICALAYLE GARCIA, BARBARA KRAUS, MARTHA LOPEZ, FRANCISCO
MARTINEZ, MEGAN SARGENT, individually and as a representative of a
Putative Class of and Beneficiaries, on behalf of the 99 CENTS ONLY
STORES 401(K) PLAN, v. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES LLC; THE RETIREMENT
COMMITTEE OF THE 99 CENTS ONLY 401(K) PLAN; and
DOES 1 through 20, Case No. 2:22-cv-01966-SPG-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order granting
stipulation to continue hearing date and other case deadlines as
follows:

   1. The Hearing on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is
      continued to November 30, 2022.

   2. The parties' deadline to submit an amended Joint Rule
      26(f) Report is extended to November 30, 2022; and

   3. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Motion for Class
      Certification is extended to March 22, 2023.

99 Cents is an American price-point retailer chain based in
Commerce, California. It offers "a combination of closeout branded
merchandise, general merchandise and fresh foods."

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eXDDM9 at no extra charge.[CC]

ALCON LABORATORIES: Alexandre Files Mislabeling Suit Over Eyedrops
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Alexandre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 7:22-cv-08859 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for breaches of express warranty, fraud, and
unjust enrichment, and for violations of the General Business Law
and State Consumer Fraud Acts arising from the false and misleading
representations of its product.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was prescribed the
Defendant's Extra Strength Once Daily Relief for eye allergy itch
relief prior to 2022. He used the product in the same way as
directed on the packaging, one drop per day in each eye. Over
several months, Plaintiff observed that the bottles last
approximately 20 days instead of the 30 promised on the label. The
product contains other representations which are false and
misleading. Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the
truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid
less for it, says the suit.

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$12.99 for 2.5 mL (0.085 fl oz), excluding tax and sales, higher
than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and
higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading
representations and omissions, the suit asserts.

Alcon Laboratories manufactures, labels, markets, and sells Extra
Strength Once Daily Relief in containers promising a thirty day
supply under the Pataday brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Cevasco Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CEVASCO, on behalf of the Allegiant 401(k) Retirement Plan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01741 (D. Nev., Oct. 17, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for breaching its fiduciary duties of prudence in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiff is a participant of the Allegiant 401(k) Retirement
Plan. As of December 31, 2021, the Plan had $371,281,305 in assets
and 3,720 total participants with account balances as of the end of
the plan year. The complaint asserts that instead of leveraging the
Plan's tremendous bargaining power to benefit participants and
beneficiaries, the Defendant caused the Plan to pay unreasonable
and excessive fees for recordkeeping and other administrative
services.

The Plaintiff has standing to bring this action on behalf of the
Plan because Plaintiff participated in the Plan and was injured by
Defendant's unlawful conduct, says the complaint. For example,
Defendant did not adhere to fiduciary best practices to control
Plan fees and expenses. To the extent that Defendant made any
prudent attempt to control the Plan's expenses and to ensure the
expenses were not excessive, Defendant employed flawed and
ineffective processes, which failed to ensure that: (a) the fees
and expenses charged to Plan participants were reasonable, and (b)
that the compensation third-party service providers received from
the plan for services provided were reasonable, adds the
complaint.

Allegiant Travel Company is an American travel and hospitality
company that is the parent of Allegiant Air. Allegiant is the Plan
Sponsor and a fiduciary of the Plan within the meaning of
ERISA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Kind, Esq.  
          KIND LAW
          8860 S. Maryland Parkway, Suite 106
          Las Vegas, NV
          Telephone: (702) 337-2322
          E-mail: mk@kindlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
          3 Terry Drive, Suite. 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867-2399
          E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com

               - and -

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.  
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Michael C. McKay, Esq.
          MCKAY LAW, LLC
          5635 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 170
          Scottsdale, AZ 85250
          Telephone: (480) 681-7000
          E-mail: mckay@mckay.law

ALLIANT CREDIT: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over NSF Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALICIA M. PAGE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ALLIANT CREDIT
UNION, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-1983 (7th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms the district
court's order dismissing Page's claim.

Ms. Page sued Alliant Credit Union on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated customers, alleging that Alliant charged fees in
violation of its contract.

Alliant is a credit union organized under Illinois law that does
business exclusively over the internet. It serves a nationwide
customer base that included, during the relevant period, Page, a
citizen of New Jersey. Like many banks and credit unions, Alliant
charges a non-sufficient fund ("NSF") fee when it rejects an
attempted debit because an account lacks sufficient funds to cover
the transaction.

The appeal concerns the methods that Alliant can use, pursuant to
its contact, to determine whether to assess an NSF fee and how many
NSF fees Alliant may charge based on a single transaction by a
customer. Page argues that her contract with Alliant requires the
credit union to use the ledger-balance method when assessing NSF
fees and permits only one NSF fee per transaction, while Alliant
contends that the contract permits it to use the "available-balance
method."

Ms. Page filed this putative class action in federal district court
on behalf of herself and similarly situated Alliant customers she
alleges were improperly charged NSF fees. She asserted a federal
claim under the Electronic Fund Transfers Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections
1693-1693r, and several state law claims including breach of
contract, which is the only claim at issue on appeal.

The district court granted Alliant's motion to dismiss. First, it
rejected Page's account-balance theory, explaining that the plain,
unambiguous language states that a member needs sufficient
available funds and reasoning that Page's proposed reading would
render Section 7(a)'s use of the word "available" meaningless.
Second, it rejected the multiple-fees theory.

The district court dismissed the case with prejudice. Page
appealed.

First, the Seventh Circuit agrees with the district court that the
Agreement was unambiguous and that under its plain meaning,
Alliant's conduct was not a breach of contract. It also agrees with
the district court that the Agreement is not ambiguous and that it
does not prohibit Alliant from using the available-balance method
to charge NSF fees. Thus, the district court correctly rejected the
account-balance theory.

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit finds that he Agreement does not
prohibit Alliant from charging multiple NSF fees for a transaction
that is presented and rejected several times. Hence, the district
court correctly rejected the multiple-fees theory.

The Seventh Circuit concludes that Alliant could have drafted the
Agreement more clearly than it did, but that is not the question
before the Court. Its inquiry is whether Alliant promised not to
use the available-balance method to assess NSF fees or not to
charge multiple fees when a transaction is presented to it multiple
times. Alliant made no such promises, and the district court
properly dismissed Page's breach-of-contract claim. Accordingly, it
affirms.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y93jcbpy from Leagle.com.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Status Hearing Rescheduled to Nov. 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TISHA HILARIO, Plaintiff,
v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05459-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting
the Defendant's unopposed motion to move the class certification
hearing date:

   -- The hearing date is rescheduled for November 16,
      2022.

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

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F9EPHc at no extra charge.[CC]

ANGEL'S CARE: Allen Suit Seeks to Certify Caregiver Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENIKE ALLEN, et al., v.
ANGEL'S CARE FAMILY HOME, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00358-MRB
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action:

      "All Caregivers who were paid straight time for any hours
      in excess of 40 hours in a workweek from June 21, 2019 to
      the present;"

   2. authorizing the Plaintiff to send judicial notice to the
      members of the proposed class;

   3. approving the Plaintiff's proposed notice;

   4. compelling the Defendant to produce a list of the members
      of the proposed class containing the requested
      information; and

   5. authorizing a 60-day notice period for members of the
      proposed class to join the case.

The Plaintiff estimates there are approximately 15 potential opt-in
Plaintiffs who fit the criteria of this putative collective. These
current and former employees were denied overtime pay as a result
of policies and practices wherein the employees were not paid at
least one and one-half times their hourly rate of pay until they
worked at least 60 hours in a workweek, the Plaintiff adds.

Angel's Care is a for-profit Ohio corporation operating multiple
residential care facilities for elderly residents with
Alzheimer’s or other forms of dementia.

The Defendants Todd and or Lisa Sloan are the owners of Angel's
Care.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MW9lWO
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robb S. Stokar
          STOKAR LAW, LLC
          404 E. 12th St. -- First Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 500-8511
          E-mail: rss@stokarlaw.com

ARGO GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
---------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gangcuangco, writing for Insurance Business UK, reports that
a securities class action on behalf of Argo Group International
Holdings investors has been filed, with the underwriter being
accused of misleading shareholders about the company's growth and
business prospects.

One of the firms looking to represent relevant investors, The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, noted: "The complaint filed in this class
action alleges that throughout the class period, Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the company's business,
operations, and prospects.

"Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
Argo's reserves were wholly inadequate and its underwriting
standards were not prudent as was represented; (2) Argo had
dramatically changed its underwriting policies on certain US
construction contracts as far back as 2018; (3) these policies were
underwritten outside of the company's ‘core' business including
in certain states and for certain exposures that were far riskier
than investors understood and that the company no longer would
service moving forward; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Argo common stock between February
13, 2018, and August 9, 2022.

Robbins LLP, one of the other firms, said: "Similarly situated
shareholders may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Argo. Shareholders who want to be appointed lead plaintiff
for the class must file their papers by December 20, 2022. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate
in the case to be eligible for a recovery."

Through a contingency fee arrangement, shareholders may be entitled
to compensation without paying out-of-pocket costs or expenses.

Argo, as of this writing, has not issued a statement in response to
the class action.   [GN]

AVX CORPORATION: Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Dec. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN RE AVX CORPORATIONSTOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION
Consolidated C.A. No. 2020-1046-SG

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER
CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

This notice is for all former record holders and/or beneficial
owners of common stock of AVX Corporation ("AVX") who received
$21.75 per share in cash in exchange for their shares of AVX common
stock in connection with the acquisition of the outstanding shares
of AVX stock not already owned by Kyocera Corporation ("Kyocera"),
in their capacities as record holders and/or beneficial owners of
such stock (the "Class Shares"), together with their heirs,
assigns, transferees, and successors-in-interest, in each case in
their capacity as holders of Class Shares (the "Class").

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at
www.AVXCorporationStockholdersLitigation.com. Any capitalized terms
used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this
Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release
dated September 21, 2022 (the "Stipulation"), which is also
available at www.AVXCorporationStockholdersLitigation.com.

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") has been
certified as a class action on behalf of the Class defined above.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) plaintiffs Amy Stone Lamborn, Robert
Reese, Harriet Herman, and Albert Herman (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the other members of the
Court-certified Class; and (ii) defendants Kyocera and Shoichi
Aoki, Hiroshi Fure, Koichi Kano, John Sarvis, Hideo Tanimoto, and
Goro Yamaguchi (collectively, the "Individual Defendants," and
together with Kyocera, "Defendants") (Plaintiffs and Defendants,
together, the "Parties") have reached a proposed settlement of the
Action for $49,900,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the
Settlement are stated in the Stipulation entered into between
Plaintiffs and Defendants. If approved by the Court, the Settlement
will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on December 22,
2022, at 11:30 a.m., before The Honorable Sam Glasscock III, Vice
Chancellor, by telephone conference, to, among other things: (i)
determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court; (ii)
determine whether the Judgment, substantially in the form attached
as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the
Action with prejudice as against Defendants; (iii) determine
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund
is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (iv)
determine whether the application by Co-Lead Counsel for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; (v) hear and
rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or the application by Co-Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses; and (vi) consider any other matters
that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with
the Settlement.

Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes
to the date, time, or format of the hearing or updates regarding
remote or in-person appearances at the hearing, will be posted to
the Settlement website,
www.AVXCorporationStockholdersLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the
Settlement Administrator at AVX Corporation Stockholders
Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, PO Box 91050, Seattle, WA
98111, 877-917-0076, or
info@AVXCorporationStockholdersLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice
can also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.AVXCorporationStockholdersLitigation.com.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed
Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to
receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to
the product of (i) the number of Class Shares held by the Eligible
Class Member at the time such Class Shares were exchanged for the
Acquisition Consideration and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the
Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount
of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Class Shares held
by all of the Eligible Class Members at the time such Class Shares
were exchanged for the Acquisition Consideration. As explained in
further detail in the Notice at paragraphs 24-33, pursuant to the
Plan of Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to
Eligible Class Members will be made in the same manner in which
Eligible Class Members received the Acquisition Consideration.
Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to
receive a payment from the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award
attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Register in
Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and
delivered to Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than December 7, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this
Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement
Administrator or Co-Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:

AVX Corporation Stockholders Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
PO Box 91050
Seattle, WA 98111
877-917-0076
info@AVXCorporationStockholdersLitigation.com
www.AVXCorporationStockholdersLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Co-Lead Counsel:

Mark Lebovitch
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
1‑800‑380‑8496settlements@blbglaw.com

Jeffrey M. Gorris
Friedlander & Gorris, P.A.
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
Wilmington, DE 19801
1-302-573-3500 jgorris@friedlandergorris.com

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE [GN]

BANZAI STEAKHOUSE: Tung Seeks Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TZU-HSIANG TUNG, and all
others similarly situated, v. BANZAI STEAKHOUSE INC., KARL SHAO, as
an individual, Case No. 7:22-cv-05750-KMK-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional
class  certification, court-authorized notice, and expedited
discovery, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Banzai is a restaurant serving Japanese cuisine.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 20,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WkgDrJ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30 th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

               - and -

          Raymond Nardo, Esq.
          RAYMOND NARDO P.C.
          129 Third Street
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 248-2121

BECTON AND DICKINSON: Faces Aguila Suit Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
RAMON AGUILA, on behalf of the general public as private attorney
general, Plaintiff V. BECTON AND DICKINSON; APIDEL TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV404498
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Oct. 13, 2022) is a representative
action for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, California Labor Code arising from the
Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants implemented policies and
practices which led to Defendants': (a) failure to pay wages
including overtime; (b) failure to provide meal periods for every
work period exceeding more than five or 10 hours per day and
failure to pay an additional hour of pay or accurately pay an
additional hour of pay in lieu of providing meal period; (c)
failure to provide rest breaks for every four hours or major
fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour of
pay or accurately pay an additional hour of pay in lieu of
providing rest period; (d) failing to pay timely wages required by
Labor Code; (e) failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; (f) failing to Pay Reporting Time; and (g) failing to
reimburse expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in approximately
November 2020, as non-exempt employee with the title of packaging
operator and worked during the liability period for Defendants
until Plaintiff's separation from Defendants' employ in
approximately August 30, 2021.

Becton and Dickinson is an American multinational medical
technology company that manufactures and sells medical devices,
instrument systems, and reagents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand Case Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that class action
lawyers won't be pursuing their case against the maker of the
digital card game Hearthstone in their preferred venue.

San Diego federal judge Sunshine Sykes on Oct. 19 rejected their
motion to remand their case back to state court, finding Blizzard
Entertainment had justification for removing the case to federal
court under the Class Action Fairness Act.

A girl known as Y.H., through guardian Nathan Harris, filed suit
May 3 in California's Orange County Superior Court against Blizzard
Entertainment, which removed the case to federal court on May 17.

At issue are virtual packs that players can buy to upgrade their
deck of cards. But customers don't know what is inside the packs
when buying them.

"Defendant's unfair, deceptive and unlawful practices of allowing
players, including minors, to pay real-world currency to gamble on
winning in-game items, as well as refusing to provide refunds to
minors who made in-game purchases, deceive, mislead and harm
consumers, especially minor children who comprise a large segment
of Defendant's player population," the suit says.

"Plaintiff and other consumers have been injured as a result of
Defendant's practices, including but not limited to, having
suffered out-of-pocket losses."

The plaintiff is represented by Eugene Turin of McGuire Law in
Chicago. His attempt to get back to Orange County Superior Court
was complicated by a refund to his client.

"Because removal was proper, Y.H.'s motion to remand in response to
Blizzard's motion to dismiss is only appropriate if there has not
been a change in circumstances stripping the action of subject
matter jurisdiction," Sykes wrote.

"Here, Blizzard accepted Y.H.'s disaffirmation and gave her a ful
refund after the action had already been removed. Blizzard's
acceptance of Y.H.'s disaffirmation suggests that Y.H.'s individual
claims ar moot and could undermine Y.H.'s class complaint --
therefor, calling into question whether there have been sufficient
changes in circumstances warranting Blizzard's motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." [GN]

BMW NA: Niculescu & Avic Voluntarily Dismissed as Named Plaintiffs
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA HU, et al., Plaintiffs v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA
LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-4363 (EP) (JBC)
(D.N.J.), Judge Evelyn Padin of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey voluntarily dismisses Ion Niculescu and
Razmir Avic as Named Plaintiffs without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative class,
allege that the Defendants sold "clean diesel" cars with "defeat
devices" aimed at fooling emissions tests (and consumers) into
thinking that the cars polluted less than their gasoline
counterparts. The parties agreed on a mechanism for the Defendants
to inspect the cars, and for the Plaintiffs to dispose of them. But
they disagree on whether certain Plaintiffs can leave the case
without prejudice and without the Defendants inspecting those
Plaintiffs' cars.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class members are owners of
2009-2013 BMW X5 xDrive35d and 2009-2011 BMW 335d cars, marketed as
"clean diesel" vehicles. BMW NA and BMW Aktiengesellschaft
manufactured and sold the Cars. The Plaintiffs allege that they
purchased their Cars based on their lower emissions, when in
reality BMW Defendants and Robert Bosch LLC and/or parent Robert
Bosch GmbH, allegedly created and installed "defeat devices" aimed
at fooling vehicle inspections into registering compliance with
regulatory standards while emitting more pollutants than their
gasoline-powered counterparts.

The parties ask the Court to resolve a conflict regarding the
Stipulated Order Regarding the Disposition and Inspection of
Subject Vehicles. During the discovery process, the Defendants
sought to inspect the Named Plaintiffs' Cars. The Plaintiffs, in
turn, sought a mechanism to dispose of some Cars, if desired. The
parties spent months negotiating the Stipulation, which the Court
signed.

At the heart of the dispute are Paragraphs 5 and 6. Paragraph 5
provides a timeline and mechanism for the Plaintiffs to voluntarily
dismiss and avoid inspection of the Cars. And Paragraph 6 provides
the parties' dueling interpretations of Paragraph 5.

According to the Plaintiffs, dismissal pursuant to Stipulation
Paragraph 5 should be without prejudice and without the need for
inspection. Conversely, the Defendants argue that any dismissal
without inspection would constitute spoliation.

As the impasse continued, the Defendants reiterated their own
interpretation of Paragraph 5, and added an argument: that the
Plaintiffs had failed to move to voluntarily dismiss the claims
within the 30-day window contemplated by Paragraph 5. The
Plaintiffs argue that the 30-day window never ran because Paragraph
5 was unclear, and therefore not operative.

The parties briefed the issues to the Magistrate Judge, who
referred the matter to the undersigned due to potentially
dispositive implications. By then, the dispute was no longer
theoretical -- two Named Plaintiffs, Niculescu and Avic, now seek
to voluntarily dismiss their claims pursuant to the Stipulation,
without prejudice and without inspection pursuant to the
Plaintiffs' interpretation of Paragraph 5.

Judge Padin states that the Defendants are correct that Paragraph
5's 30-day window has passed. The Court signed the protocol (the
Stipulation) on April 20, 2022. The 30-day window expired on May
20, 2022, without any motion to voluntarily dismiss having been
filed. The Plaintiffs did not ask the Court for clarification until
June 15, 2022, and did not seek the dismissal of Niculescu and Avic
until Aug. 25, 2022. Thus, even if the Plaintiffs' interpretation
of Paragraph 5 were correct, the time expired without them seeking
to dismiss without inspection, extend the deadline, or clarify the
Stipulation.

But more importantly, the Stipulation explicitly noted that the
parties did not agree on how dismissal would work -- with prejudice
or without, inspection or not. They did not agree on its mechanism.
Thus, the question is whether the Plaintiffs can dismiss, and on
what conditions.

Judge Padin says the Defendants provide no reason, and she cannot
identify, why Niculescu and Avic should not be dismissed. But the
Plaintiffs' argument that Niculescu and Avic's dismissal exempts
them from discovery as absent class members puts the cart before
the horse. They have not yet been dismissed, and thus are not yet
"absent." And before dismissal, the Court must consider
conditions.

The Plaintiffs nevertheless argue that Niculescu and Avic's Cars
need not be inspected because they will become "absent class
members." But, Judge Padin holds that Niculescu and Avic, even if
they are no longer Named Plaintiffs, are not ordinary, absent class
members. Even absent class members can be subject to discovery if
they were once named plaintiffs, provided the discovery is relevant
and not unduly burdensome.

The Plaintiffs argue (and the Defendants flatly deny) that the Cars
had defeat devices installed which were designed to fool emissions
inspections. The Cars are the case. Certainly, then, inspecting the
cars is "relevant to the party's claim or defense." Additionally,
an ongoing dispute highlights the importance of ensuring discovery
compliance: only about 22 of the 43 Named Plaintiffs timely served
individualized discovery responses and objections. That about half
of Named Plaintiffs have become nonresponsive should underscore for
any remaining Named Plaintiffs, including Niculescu and Avic, the
importance of their obligation to ensure that any Cars will remain
available for inspection when the time comes. Accordingly, while
dismissal without prejudice is appropriate, it is appropriate to
condition that dismissal upon inspection.

Having considered the submissions of the parties and all other
relevant docket entries, Judge Padin voluntarily dismisses
Niculescu and Avic as Named Plaintiffs, and that dismissal will be
without prejudice subject to their compliance with the
Stipulation's inspection protocol. Niculescu or Avic's failure to
comply with the Stipulation and protocol may, upon proper motion,
result in sanctions including dismissal against Niculescu and/or
Avic with prejudice, or whatever other sanction may be fair and
just.  
The parties will, within 60 days of the Order, update the Court on
the status of the inspection of Niculescu and Avic's Cars.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mwet95k5 from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: Bids for Summary Judgment in Arrington Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, ARRINGTON v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL. SECTION "A" BEELER v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION "A" BENDOLPH v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION "A" BYRD v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION "A" HALSELL v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION "A" GARCIA v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION "A" STEWART v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION "A" JOHNSON v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION "A" SIMMONS v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION "A" TOBIAS v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION "A" McMILLAN v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION "A", Civil Action No. 17-3025, No. 17-3039., 17-3041,
17-3073, 17-3262, 17-3541, 17-4184, 17-4369, 17-4583, 17-4613,
17-4649 (E.D. La.), Judge Jay C. Zainey of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Defendants'
Motions in Limine and Motions for Summary Judgment filed in each of
the captioned cases.

The captioned cases are B3 lawsuits that were allotted to this
section from Judge Barbier's MDL 2179 pertaining to the Deepwater
Horizon disaster that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The
B3 pleading bundle includes personal injury claims due to oil or
chemical exposure during the disaster response -- In re Oil Spill
by Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010, No. MDL 2179, 2021 WL 6055613, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021).
B3 plaintiffs either opted out of the Medical Settlement or were
not members of the settlement class.

The Plaintiff in each captioned B3 lawsuit was employed in the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill response effort and claims that
exposure to crude oil and chemical dispersants (the former being
released by the oil spill itself and the latter being used in the
cleanup process) caused various personal injuries, some temporary
and some long-term.

From the inception of the severed B3 cases, it has been understood
that to prevail "B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the response." A B3 plaintiff must prove that the legal
cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other
chemicals used during the oil spill response. The issue of
causation will require an individualized inquiry. The plaintiff's
burden with respect to causation in a toxic tort case involves
proof of both general causation and specific causation.

Judge Zainey finds that in each of the hundreds of B3 cases that
were reassigned from MDL 2179 to the judges of this district, the
Plaintiff attempted to prove both general and specific causation by
relying on expert medical doctor, Jerald Cook, M.D. The motions in
limine in the captioned cases pertain to the Plaintiff's use of Dr.
Cook's report, and the testimony that would derive from it at
trial, as evidence of both general and specific causation.

The Movants seek to exclude Dr. Cook's opinions on various grounds
including the principles espoused in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). If Dr. Cook's opinions
are excluded from trial, then Defendants argue that their motion
for summary judgment must be granted because the Plaintiff in each
case will have no expert medical causation evidence, which would
constitute a complete failure of proof on an essential element of
the case.

Judge Zainey has carefully studied and considered the numerous
decisions issued by the other judges of this district who have
determined that Dr. Cook's opinions should be excluded. For the
same reasons given by Judges Vance, Barbier, Morgan, Milazzo, and
Ashe when they granted the Defendants' motions in limine directed
at the same or even "improved" versions of Dr. Cook's report, he
grants the Defendants' motions in limine in the captioned cases.
Consequently, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment are
likewise granted.

Judge Zainey notes that the Plaintiff has filed a motion for
extension of deadlines in each of the captioned cases, contending
that the Court should refrain from ruling on any dispositive
motions pending the resolution of the 30(b)(6) discovery dispute in
the Torres-Lugo matter, Civil Action 20-210. As Judge Barbier noted
in his cases when faced with the identical motion for extension of
deadlines, the discovery dispute does not affect the causation
inquiry that has proved fatal in the various B3 cases in this
district.

Accordingly, Judge Zainey grants the Motions in Limine. He also
grants the Motions for Summary Judgment filed in each of the
captioned cases and that all of the claims of the Plaintiffs
against all of the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. He
denies the Motions for Extension of Deadlines.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc5ea8ed from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: Bids for Summary Judgment in McInnis Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, McINNIS v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION "A" NGUYEN v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION "A" TERREBONNE v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION "A" JACKSON v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.
SECTION "A", Civil Action No. 17-3556, No. 17-4467., 17-4549,
17-3299 (E.D. La.), Judge Jay C. Zainey of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Defendants'
Motions in Limine and Motions for Summary Judgment.

The captioned cases are B3 lawsuits that were allotted to this
section from Judge Barbier's MDL 2179 pertaining to the Deepwater
Horizon disaster that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The
B3 pleading bundle includes personal injury claims due to oil or
chemical exposure during the disaster response -- In re Oil Spill
by Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010, No. MDL 2179, 2021 WL 6055613, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021).
B3 plaintiffs either opted out of the Medical Settlement or were
not members of the settlement class.

The Plaintiff in each captioned B3 lawsuit was employed in the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill response effort and claims that
exposure to crude oil and chemical dispersants (the former being
released by the oil spill itself and the latter being used in the
cleanup process) caused various personal injuries, some temporary
and some long-term.

From the inception of the severed B3 cases, it has been understood
that to prevail B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the response. The issue of causation will require an
individualized inquiry. The plaintiff's burden with respect to
causation in a toxic tort case involves proof of both general
causation and specific causation.

In each of the hundreds of B3 cases that were reassigned from MDL
2179 to the judges of this district, the plaintiff attempted to
prove both general and specific causation by relying on expert
medical doctor, Jerald Cook, M.D. The motions in limine in the
captioned cases pertain to the Plaintiff's use of Dr. Cook's
report, and the testimony that would derive from it at trial, as
evidence of both general and specific causation.

The Movants seek to exclude Dr. Cook's opinions on various grounds.
If Dr. Cook's opinions are excluded from trial, then the Defendants
argue that their motion for summary judgment must be granted
because the Plaintiff in each case will have no expert medical
causation evidence, which would constitute a complete failure of
proof on an essential element of the case.

Judge Zainey has carefully studied and considered the numerous
decisions issued by the other judges of this district who have
determined that Dr. Cook's opinions should be excluded. For the
same reasons given by Judges Vance, Barbier, Morgan, Milazzo, and
Ashe when they granted the Defendants' motions in limine directed
at the same or even "improved" versions of Dr. Cook's report, he
grants the Defendants' motions in limine in the captioned cases.
Consequently, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment are
likewise granted.

Judge Zainey notes that each Plaintiff has filed a motion for
extension of deadlines in the captioned cases, contending that the
Court should refrain from ruling on any dispositive motions pending
the resolution of the 30(b)(6) discovery dispute in the Torres-Lugo
matter, Civil Action 20-210. As Judge Barbier noted in his cases
when faced with the identical motion for extension of deadlines,
the discovery dispute does not affect the causation inquiry that
has proved fatal in the various B3 cases in this district.

Accordingly, Judge Zainey grants the Motions in Limine. He also
grants the Motions for Summary Judgment and dismisses all of the
Plaintiffs' claims against all of the Defendants with prejudice. He
denies the Motions for Extension of Deadlines.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/vuxfsvxk from Leagle.com.


BRITAX CHILD: Coleman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY COLEMAN, KELI
SWANN, and HEATHER BROOKE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. BRITAX CHILD SAFETY, INC., Case No.
0:21-cv-00721-SAL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs move for an extension of
the deadline for them to file a motion for class certification and
serve their class certification expert report from October 19, 2022
to and including January 13, 2023.

The Plaintiffs have not previously requested an extension of this
deadline. Because this extension would require modest changes to
the current Amended Conference and Scheduling Order, the Plaintiffs
also seek amendment of that Scheduling Order. This amendment would
not alter the currently scheduled trial date.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 14, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MZleLJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Martha A. Geer, Esq.
          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com
                  dbryson@milberg.com
                  mgeer@milberg.com
                  gcoleman@milberg.com
                  jcohen@milberg.com

BROCK PIERCE: Opposition to Class Status in Rowan Suit Due Nov. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nathan Rowan v. Brock
Pierce, Case No. 3:20-cv-01648 (D.P.R.), the Hon. Judge Raul M.
Arias-Marxuach entered an order granting motion to clarify class
certification.

Opposition to motion for class certification is due by November 18,
2022, the Court says.

The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.[CC]

CABELA'S LLC: Calvert Sues Over Wiretapping of Website Visitors
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN CALVERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CABELA'S L.L.C., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01460-WSH (W.D. Pa., Oct. 14, 2022) is a class action
brought against Cabelas for wiretapping the electronic
communications of visitors, including Plaintiff, to its website,
www.cabelas.com, in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and
Electronic Surveillance Control Act.

According to the complaint, Cabelas procures third-party vendors,
such as Microsoft Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript
computer code known as Session Replay Code on Cabelas' website,
which then deploys on each website visitor's Internet browser for
the purpose intercepting and recording the website visitor's
electronic communications with the Cabelas website, including their
mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered
into an information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited,
and/or other electronic communications in real-time. These
third-party vendors or the Session Replay Providers create and
deploy the Session Replay Code at Cabelas's request, says the
suit.

After intercepting and capturing the website communications,
Cabelas and the Session Replay Providers use those website
communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to
www.cabelas.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video replay
of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to Cabelas for
analysis. Cabelas' procurement of the Session Replay Providers to
secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results in the electronic
equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to the
Cabelas website for the entire duration of their website
interaction, the suit further alleges.

Cabela's L.L.C is an American retailer that specializes in hunting,
fishing, boating, camping, shooting and other outdoor recreation
merchandise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
                  kelly@lcllp.com
                  jamisen@lcllp.com
                  elizabeth@lcllp.com
                  nickc@lcllp.com
                  patrick@lcllp.com

CANADA: French-Language Chapter Launched in Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the Black Class Action Secretariat
launched a French-language chapter on Oct. 24 as part of its
efforts to seek compensation for people who have been discriminated
against in the federal public service because they are Black.

The class action was launched in December 2020 and seeks $2.6
billion in damages for Black people who have allegedly been harmed
by discriminatory hiring or promotion practices in federal
institutions since the 1970s.

"Until now, few French-speaking voices have been heard in this
country," said Quebec director of operations Alain Babineau at a
press conference in Montreal on Oct. 24.

The Black Class Action Secretariat is therefore launching a
French-language chapter to make these voices heard as well.

"No, it's not settled, and not all cases date back to the 1970s or
1980s," said Babineau.

Babineau is a Black man, a perfectly bilingual francophone, who
worked for the RCMP in Toronto, and describes the double
discrimination, as a Black man and as a francophone.

"At one point, we couldn't speak French in the detachment where I
was. We couldn't speak French because we had to 'speak white'! We
were told that!" he said. "As a Black person, we also experience it
internally, as a racialized person. This is a double issue. Often,
when you get a promotion . . . one of the things I was told at the
beginning when I joined the RCMP, my colleagues would say: 'You're
going to be promoted easily, because you're Black and you're
francophone, you're bilingual.'

"Immediately, there was this sort of 'you have a free pass, we'll
make it easy for you,'" said Babineau.

Amnesty International Canada Francophone supports the approach and
was present at the press conference.

Amnesty does not support the cause financially but has valuable
expertise in advocacy.

"We were approached by the class action, and we gave our support.
So we're supporting them in terms of recourse to international
law," said executive director France-Isabelle Langlois.

"The people who are bringing the case are open to negotiation,"
said Babineau. "We hope that it will be settled before we go to
court and expose to the whole of Canada and abroad to what the
federal government has done to Black employees over the past 50
years. We are always ready to negotiate, to sit down."

Babineau said the federal government has already tried to argue
that it is better to go to the Human Rights Commission or to
proceed with grievances rather than a class action.

This will be debated in March.

As for the action itself, it will need to pass the certification
stage next May, he said.

In addition to the collective action, a complaint on the matter has
also been filed with the UN Rapporteur on Human Rights. [GN]

CASH EXPRESS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Adams Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MARY ADAMS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CASH EXPRESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00050 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 14, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Tennessee
Identity Theft Deterrence Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.

On September 15, 2022, Cash Express announced that it had been the
recipient of a hack and exfiltration of sensitive personal
information (SPI) involving approximately 106,000 individuals who
have used Defendant's services in the past. Cash Express reported
that this SPI included Social Security numbers, full names, dates
of birth, contact information, driver's license numbers, "limited
medical details," and financial information, including bank and
routing numbers.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and Class members' SPI was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and its failure to protect the SPI of Plaintiff and Class
members. Thus, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all
persons whose SPI was compromised as a result of Defendant's
failure to: (i) adequately protect consumers' SPI, (ii) adequately
warn its current and former customers and potential customers of
its inadequate information security practices, and (iii)
effectively monitor its platforms for security vulnerabilities and
incidents.

Cash Express is a payday loan lender, check cashing service, and
pawn shop with locations in Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and
Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Luke Widener, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S. Gay St., Ste. 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865)-247-0080
          E-mail: lwidener@milberg.com

               - and -

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

CATHOLIC CHARITIES: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Cawley Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHELSEA CAWLEY, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATHOLIC CHARITIES
OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, California corporation; and DOES through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV404814 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Oct. 17, 2022) is a class action brought against the
Defendants pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure
arising from their unlawful labor policies and practices.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants' failed to: pay overtime
wages; pay meal and period premiums; pay minimum wages; pay final
wages; timely pay wages during employment; provide wage statements;
keep requisite payroll records; reimburse business expenses; and
violated the California Business Professions Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee, from approximately November 2019 to
approximately March 2022.

Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County is a social services
organization in San Jose, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021

CENTURYLINK INC: Bultemeyer Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYDIA BULTEMEYER, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.
CENTURYLINK, INC., Case No. 2:14-cv-02530-SPL (D. Ariz.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action;

   2. appointing her as class representative; and

   3. appointing her counsel as class co-counsel pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

On December 23, 2021, the Plaintiff moved this Court for class
certification. After full briefing and a hearing on the merits, on
April 7, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to certify the
class. In the Order, the Court held:

   (1) the class period must be as set forth in the Complaint,
       and

   (2) because many putative class members were potentially
       subject to arbitration agreements and class-action
       waivers -- while Plaintiff is not -- the Plaintiff was
       therefore not typical or adequate to represent those
       persons.

The Court did not modify the class definition but gave Plaintiff
the opportunity to renew her motion and define a class in
accordance with the Order.

The Plaintiff now submits a renewed motion for class certification
in accordance with the Court's Order by narrowing the class
consistent with the Order. The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify
the following class of persons against CenturyLink for violations
of the Fair Credit reporting Act, (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. sections 20
1681b, defined as follows:

   "Every individual in the United States about whom CenturyLink
   obtained a consumer credit report using the personal
   information the individual entered into CenturyLink's
   ecommerce website, from November 14, 2012 through the
   November 14, 2014, and who did not sign an arbitration
   agreement or class action waiver with Defendant."

The Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that
Defendant violated the FCRA by obtaining her credit report, and
those of putative class members, without a permissible purpose. Ms.
Bultemeyer accessed the Defendant's website and began an online
order for residential internet services. The Defendant's online
order process involved five steps.

The Plaintiff completed the first four steps, which included
entering her address and other personal information, selecting
which service options she considered purchasing, and clicking a
checkbox indicating acceptance of terms and conditions.

After step four, the Defendant automatically ran a credit report on
Plaintiff, as it did for all consumers between steps four and five.
The Plaintiff reached step five -- which asked for payment
information and then allowed the consumer to submit the order for
processing -- but she decided not to place an order and never
completed step five.

CenturyLink (Lumen Technologies) is an American telecommunications
company headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana.

A copy of the Plaintiff's renewed motion to certify class dated
Oct. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3suyv5v at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC
          11445 E Via Linda, Ste. 2 No. 492
          Scottsdale, AZ 85259
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN
          501 W. Broadway, Ste. 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 501-6550
          E-mail: andrewb@thebrownlawfirm.com

CHEMOURS CO: Appeal on Class Certification Ruling Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Chemours Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 26, 2022, that the PFAS suit
certification decision appeal of the company is still pending in
court as of September 2022.

In Ohio, a putative class action was filed against several
defendants including 3M, EID and Chemours seeking class action
status for U.S. residents having a detectable level of PFAS in
their blood serum.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including
the establishment of a "PFAS Science Panel."

In March 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the
plaintiff's class certification and certified a class covering
anyone subject to Ohio laws having minimal levels of PFOA plus at
least one other PFAS in their blood.

The court requested further briefing on whether the class should be
extended to include other states that recognize the claims for
relief filed in the action.

The defendants, including EID and Chemours, jointly filed a
petition to appeal the class certification decision and in
September 2022 the petition was granted and appellate review will
proceed.

Defendants will continue to defend at the trial court level while
this appeal is pending.

The Chemours Company is a provider of performance chemicals based
in Delaware.


CHEMOURS CO: Faces Drinking Water Contamination Suit in Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemours Co disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 26, 2022, that the Company faces a
drinking water contamination suit in Alabama.

In Alabama, a purported class action was filed in July 2022 in
Alabama federal court on behalf of certain drinking water utilities
against 3M, EID, Corteva and the Company alleging contamination of
drinking water.

The complaints allege negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance
and trespass. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.

The Chemours Company is a provider of performance chemicals based
in Delaware.

CHEMOURS CO: PFAS Contamination Suit Removed in Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chemours Co disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 26, 2022, that the putative PFAS
contamination class action in South Carolina is removed in federal
court.

In South Carolina, a putative class action was filed in March 2022
in the state court against 3M, EID and the Company alleging PFAS
contamination from a former textile plant located in Society Hill,
South Carolina which allegedly used PFAS containing textile
treatment chemicals supplied by the defendants.

The lawsuit alleges negligence, trespass, strict liability and
nuisance and seeks monetary damages, including property diminution,
and injunctive relief, including water treatment and remediation,
as well as punitive damages.

The matter has been removed to federal court.

The Chemours Company is a provider of performance chemicals based
in Delaware.

CIRCLE K: Cal. App. Affirms Judgment of Dismissal in Limon Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERNESTO LIMON, Plaintiff and Appellant v. CIRCLE K
STORES INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case Nos. F082289, F082929
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Fifth
District affirms the judgment of dismissal entered in favor of
Circle K and against Limon after the trial court sustained Circle
K's demurrer to Limon's class action complaint without leave to
amend.

Mr. Limon's complaint alleges Circle K violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) (15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq.) by failing to
provide him with proper FCRA disclosures when it sought and
received his authorization to obtain a consumer report about him in
connection with his application for employment, and by actually
obtaining the consumer report in reliance on that authorization.

Circle K operates gas stations and convenience stores in
California. Limon was employed by Circle K from June 29, 2018,
through July 31, 2018. To gain employment with Circle K, Limon was
required to complete a consent form purporting to authorize Circle
K "to obtain a consumer report verifying Limon's background and
experience." He alleges the consent form utilized by Circle K
violates the FCRA.

Prior to filing his complaint in state court, Limon brought suit in
federal district court on the same substantive claims. The district
court dismissed the federal action without prejudice in connection
with a motion for summary judgment and related motion for
reconsideration brought by Circle K, finding Limon lacked standing
under article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution.

When Limon filed his complaint in state court, Circle K demurred to
each cause of action on grounds Limon (1) lacked legal capacity to
sue; (2) was not a real party in interest; and (3) lacked standing
to sue. The basis for each of these contentions was that Limon did
not allege or suffer any resulting, cognizable harm or injury. The
court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a
judgment of dismissal in favor of Circle K.

On appeal, Limon argues no injury is required to pursue his causes
of action under the FCRA. In the alternative, he argues he has been
injured as a result of Circle K's alleged FCRA violations.

The questions presented on appeal are whether a plaintiff must
suffer an injury in order to have standing to sue under the FCRA in
California courts, and, if so, whether Limon has adequately alleged
a sufficient injury to confer standing upon him.

Initially, the Court of Appeals opines that the cases cited by
Limon acknowledge the Legislature's power to confer standing on a
class of persons irrespective of whether they suffered injury.
However, none of the cases relied upon by him stand for the
proposition that concrete injury is never required for standing to
sue. It concludes that, as a general matter, to have standing to
pursue a claim for damages in the courts of California, a plaintiff
must be beneficially interested in the claims he is pursuing.

Next, the Court of Appeals opines that the definitions support
Circle K's claim that the term damages connotes compensation for an
injury and the term penalty connotes punishment for wrongdoing.
Both federal and state case law further support these
interpretations of the terms. It concludes that the statutory
damages provision is intended to compensate a plaintiff for injury.
It is designed to provide redress where damages are "difficult or
impossible to quantify or prove." It is not intended to penalize a
company for violation of the FCRA.

The Court of Appeals further discerns no basis upon which to
conclude the FCRA was intended to confer public interest standing
upon a private litigant. It concludes that Limon does not have
standing under the public interest doctrine to pursue his claims in
California's courts. To have standing to pursue his claims, Limon
must allege a concrete injury.

Finally, the Court of Appeals opines that Limon has failed to
allege any concrete injury in connection with his claim of
informational injury. Thus, his alleged informational injury is
insufficient under California law to confer upon him standing to
pursue his claim in state court. It concludes, under California
law, that an informational injury that causes no adverse effect is
insufficient to confer standing upon a private litigant to sue
under the FCRA.

The record in the case establishes Limon did not allege a
sufficient injury to his legally protected interests under the FCRA
to confer standing upon him. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals
affirms the judgment of dismissal. The motion to dismiss in case
No. F082289 is granted. Circle K is entitled to its costs on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5eazy62m from Leagle.com.

Kingsley & Kingsley, Eric B. Kingsley -- eric@kingsleykingsley.com
-- Ari J. Stiller -- ari@stillerlawfirm.com -- and Jessica L.
Adlouni -- jessica@kingsleykingsley.com -- for the Plaintiff and
Appellant.

McDermott Will & Emery, Maria C. Rodriguez -- mcrodriguez@mwe.com
-- Christopher A. Braham, and Amanda D. Murray -- amurray@mwe.com
-- for the Defendant and Respondent.


COLHOC LIMITED: Faces Conneran Suit Over Illlegal Sales Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Conneran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLHOC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant, Case
No. CACE-22-015554 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Oct.
18, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in telephonic
sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express
written consent as required by the FTSA to promote its goods and
services. The Defendant made and/or knowingly allowed the
telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff and the Class members to be
made utilizing an automated system for the selection or dialing of
telephone numbers, says the suit.

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

COLHOC Limited Partnership operates a professional ice hockey
team.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

COMPU-LINK CORP: Dancy-Wilkins Alleges Subservicing Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHEILA DANCY-WILKINS and SHEILA DANCY-WILKINS AS POWER OF ATTORNEY
FOR FLORA MAYWEATHERS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMPU-LINK CORPORATION D/B/A
CELINK, and REVERSE MORTGAGE FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-06208-JS-LGD (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2022) arises from injuries
caused to Plaintiffs and other borrowers of Home Equity Conversion
Mortgages, the federally-insured version of so-called
"reverse-mortgage" loans, due to systemic violations by Celink and
RMF of borrower protections provided by standard HECM loan
agreements, federal laws and New York State laws.

According to the complaint, the effect of Celink's systemic
subservicing violations is to add unlawful and/or inflated fees,
costs, charges and penalties to borrowers' HECM loan balances. The
Plaintiffs' and Class members' injuries increase each month, as
those inflated balances increase by the (i) the interest charged on
the loan balance; and (ii) mortgage insurance charged to all HECM
loans as a percentage of the loan balance. The Defendants collect
and profit, or eventually will collect and profit when the property
securing the home is sold or the HECM is satisfied, from those
unlawful and/or inflated fees, costs, charges, penalties,
additional interest and mortgage insurance charges to borrowers'
HECM loans, says the suit.

Plaintiff Sheila Dancy-Wilkins as power of attorney for Flora
Mayweathers possesses power of attorney for her mother, Flora
Mayweathers. The Plaintiffs are co-mortgagees to an HECM loan
legally-owned, assigned to and serviced by RMF and subserviced by
Celink. In Plaintiff Dancy-Wilkins and her mother's case, those
unlawful and/or inflated monies exceed $10,700. In all cases, the
injuries increase monthly as compounding interest and mortgage
insurance are added to loan balances. The Plaintiffs and Class
members have either already paid the unlawfully-added charges, or
will be required to do so when the HECM loans are satisfied upon
sale of the homes or repayment of the HECM loans, the suit further
asserts.

Compu-Link Corporation is an independent subservicer of reverse
mortgages.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
          TUSA P.C.
          P.O. Box 566
          55000 Main Road, 2nd Floor
          Southold, NY 11971
          Telephone: (631) 407-5100
          E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com

               - and -

          Oren Giskan, Esq.
          Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
          90 Broad Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315  
          E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com
                  canderson@gslawny.com

EAST NORWICH BAGELS: Ponce Sues Over Cooks' Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA PONCE, individually, and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAST NORWICH BAGELS, INC, and JOHN
DOES, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-06266 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 17, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff
and those similarly situated employees proper overtime wages and
failure to supply wage notice in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York
State Department of Labor regulations.

Plaintiff Ponce was employed by Defendants full time as a cook from
June 2019 through June 2022.

East Norwich Bagels, Inc. owns and/or maintains a restaurant that
provides bagels, sandwiches, and salads, in East Norwich, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150  
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com

EQUIFAX INC: Discloses Subscribers' Identities, Guider-Shaw Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY GUIDER-SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-05733 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 18, 2022) is a consumer privacy
action against Equifax Inc., for violating the Video Privacy
Protection Act by disclosing Plaintiff's and other digital
subscribers' identities, personally identifiable information or
Facebook ID, and the computer file containing video and its
corresponding URL viewed to Facebook without proper consent.

Equifax allegedly collects and shares subscribers' personal
information using a "Facebook Pixel." A Facebook Pixel is a snippet
of programming code that, once installed on a webpage or mobile
application, tracks users as they navigate through a website or app
and sends information regarding the user's activity to Facebook.

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

Equifax Inc. is an American consumer credit reporting agency
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Mohammed A. Rathur, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP  
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  mrathur@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

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

ESTEE LAUDER: Castelaz Sues Over Illegal Biometric Info Retention
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CELIA CASTELAZ; BRITTANIE NALLEY; NORTHA JOHNSON; and LORI CARTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES INC.; BOBBI BROWN
PROFESSIONAL COSMETICS, INC.; ESTÉE LAUDER INC.; SMASHBOX BEAUTY
COSMETICS, INC.; and TOO FACED COSMETICS, LLC; Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-05713 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 18, 2022) asks the Court to impose
upon Defendants the mandated statutory penalties under the
Biometric Information Privacy Act relating to the collection,
storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers and
biometric information, as well as injunctive relief requiring
Defendants' destruction of already-collected and stored
information, and their adoption of disclosures which inform
consumers about Defendants' collection of their biometric data and
identifiers.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have refused, and
continue to refuse, to inform website users that they are using
technology on their beauty brand websites, including, as relevant
here, toofaced.com, smashbox.com, esteelauder.com, and
bobbibrowncosmetics.com to collect users' biometric facial scans,
and neither informs website users that their biometric identifiers
are being collected, nor asks for their consent, despite consumer
concerns regarding facial-scanning technology, and BIPA's clear
mandate.

The Defendants have violated BIPA -- and continue to violate BIPA
-- because Defendants have not and do not comply with BIPA's
permanent destruction guidelines that biometric information and
identifiers in Defendants' possession must be permanently destroyed
either when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such
identifiers or information has been satisfied, or within 3 years of
the consumer's last interaction with Defendants' Virtual Try-On
tools, whichever comes first, says the suit.

The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. is an American multinational
cosmetics company, a manufacturer and marketer of makeup, skincare,
fragrance and hair care products, based in Midtown Manhattan, New
York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Nada Djordjevic, Esq.
          James A. Ulwick, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                  ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com
                  julwick@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
          Katherine Hansson, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall St., 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 357-1100    
          E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
                  khansson@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Don Bivens, Esq.
          DON BIVENS PLLC
          Scottsdale Quarter
          15169 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 205
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (602) 708-1450
          E-mail: don@donbivens.com

EVOLVE VACATION: Chattopadhyay Sues Over Discriminatory Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMITABHO CHATTOPADHYAY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE VACATION RENTAL NETWORK,
INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06103-LB (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 17, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act, and the California Civil Code for discrimination
against and unequal treatment of Plaintiff and the Class Members
based on citizenship and/or immigration status.

According to the complaint, Evolve has long had a policy and
practice of denying non-U.S. and non-Canadian citizens Evolve's
vacation rental management services based on citizenship and/or
immigration status. At all times relevant to this complaint, the
Plaintiff was a citizen of the Republic of Singapore legally
residing in the United States, and was not a citizen of the United
States or Canada. The Plaintiff applied online on Evolve's website
to be a customer of Evolve's vacation rental management services
but Evolve denied its services to Plaintiff based on her not being
a U.S. or Canadian citizen, as Plaintiff disclosed in her online
application, says the suit.

On March 16, 2022, and again on October 8, 2022, almost immediately
after submitting her online application to Evolve on these two
dates to try to be a customer of Evolve's vacation rental services
for Evolve to manage Plaintiff's residential property in
California, Evolve sent Plaintiff an email denying Plaintiff
Evolve's services because of Plaintiff’s citizenship and/or
immigration status, the suit asserts.

Evolve Vacation Rental Network, Inc. is an Internet-based business
operating at www.evolve.com that provides its vacation rental
services to both consumers looking for places to rent for their
vacations, and to property owners who want to rent their property
to vacationers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg Adler, Esq.
          GREG ADLER P.C.
          35111F Newark Blvd., Suite 500
          Newark, CA 94560  
          Telephone: (844) 504-6587
          Facsimile: (469) 807-8878
          E-mail: greg@adler.law  

               - and -

          Alfred G. Rava, Esq.
          RAVA LAW FIRM
          3667 Voltaire Street
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 238-1993
          E-mail: alrava@cox.net

FCA US: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Sharp Suit Over Engine Defect
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY SHARP, et al., Individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US
LLC, f/k/a Chrysler Group, STELLANTIS N.V., and CUMMINS, INC.,
Defendants, Civil Case No. 21-12497 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Linda V.
Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, grants the motions to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint filed by FCA and Cummins.

On Oct. 22, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the putative nationwide
class action alleging defects in the 6.7-liter turbodiesel engine
installed in their heavy-duty trucks. FCA manufactured the trucks
while Cummins manufactured the engine.

The Plaintiffs currently are 15 consumers, claiming residence in 18
States, who seek to represent a nationwide class and subclasses of
individuals from each of the 18 States, who purchased or leased the
subject vehicles. All the Plaintiffs, except Larry Sharp, purchased
or leased a MY 2019 or MY 2020 Ram 2500 or 3500 truck. Sharp
purchased a MY 2018 3500 Ram truck.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Cummins engine contains a
demonstrably defective high-pressure fuel injection pump
manufactured by Bosch (the "CP4 pump"), in that, when used with
American diesel fuel (which contains insufficient lubrication
compared to diesel made to European specifications), there is
friction between metal parts which causes metal shavings to
contaminate the fuel system. This can lead to fuel starvation,
resulting in an unexpected loss of vehicle power without warning
and potentially a vehicular accident.

On Nov. 4, 2021, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
("NHTSA") issued a Safety Recall Report covering MY 2019-2020 Ram
2500, 3500, 4500, and 5500 pick-up trucks.

In an almost 300-page, 776-paragraph SAC, filed Feb. 1, 2022, the
Plaintiffs assert claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
("MMWA") and for common law breach of contract, as well as claims
under the laws of 18 different States for unjust enrichment, breach
of implied warranty of merchantability, and/or violation of
consumer-protection statutes.

The matter is presently before the Court on motions to dismiss
filed by FCA and Cummins. They seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. They argue that the Plaintiffs lack standing,
prudential mootness applies, and that the facts alleged fail to
state viable claims. FCA also argues that the Plaintiffs with MY
2020 vehicles must submit their claims to arbitration pursuant to
the terms of their warranties.

Cummins also filed a request for the Court to take judicial notice
of certain documents. Specifically, these documents are (i) from
the official website of the NHTSA, part of the United States
Department of Transportation, and (ii) FCA's limited warranties,
which are referred to in the Plaintiffs' pleadings and are central
to their claims.

While she concludes that the Plaintiffs, except Larry Sharp, allege
an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish their standing to bring
the action, Judge Parker finds that the case should be dismissed
pursuant to the doctrine of prudential mootness. FCA voluntarily
agreed to a recall to replace the defective CP4 pump and any
necessary fuel system components in the Plaintiffs' vehicles and to
reimburse them who incurred costs repairing their vehicles.

While the Plaintiffs' trucks may not yet be repaired, they have in
hand a remedial commitment from FCA and NHTSA Winzler. Judge Parker
says the Court can offer little by way of an injunction or
declaratory relief that will not already be provided through the
recall. Further, the anticipated repairs will remove the defect
upon which the Plaintiffs' claim for benefit-of-the-bargain damages
is based. The Plaintiffs offer only a hypothetical possibility that
their vehicles will not be adequately repaired. This is
insufficient for the Court to proceed with the case.

Having concluded that dismissal is appropriate on prudential
mootness grounds, Jugde Parker declines to address any of the
Defendants' other arguments for the same result under Rule 12(b)(1)
and (6).

Accordingly, the Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted to the
extent based on the doctrine of prudential mootness.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2dzj5k2a from Leagle.com.


FERRARI NORTH: Bid to Dismiss Rose Suit Over Brake Defect Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY ROSE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FERRARI NORTH AMERICAN, INC., et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-cv-20772 (D.N.J.), Judge John
Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey enters an Opinion:

   a. granting Ferrari's motion to dismiss the Complaint;

   b. denying without prejudice Robert Bosch LLC's motion to
      dismiss the Complaint;

   c. denying without prejudice the Defendants' motions to stay
      discovery until the motions to dismiss are decided; and

   d. denying without prejudice Bosch's motion for a protective
      order.

The class action lawsuit is premised on allegations that the
Defendants knew of a defect in the braking system in certain
Ferrari vehicles but failed to inform consumers. The Plaintiff
purchased a pre-owned 2018 Ferrari at Ferrari Maserati Atlanta, a
certified Ferrari dealer in Roswell, Georgia. In July 2021, the
Class Vehicle displayed the same "brake fluid low" message, just
like his pre-owned 2020 Ferrari.

On Oct. 23, 2021, Ferrari issued a safety recall to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") regarding a
potential issue with leaking brake fluid that could result in the
loss of braking ability. Through the recall, it was required to
notify all affected vehicle owners and include a plan to reimburse
owners who incurred costs to remedy the brake problem prior to its
notice of the defect.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knew of the brake defect
since 2015 but failed to disclose the defect to consumers,
including him, until the NHTSA recall. Although he does not know
the cause of the brake defect, he contends that it may be related
to leaking brake fluid and/or the master cylinder/brake booster
component. He further alleges that Bosch manufactures the defective
braking system installed in the Ferrari vehicles.

The Plaintiff filed the class action Complaint in this matter on
Dec. 30, 2021. Generally, he alleges that the Defendants
deceptively concealed the brake defect such that he and the
putative class members purchased or leased a vehicle that is of
lower quality than represented. He asserts claims on behalf of a
nationwide class for fraud by concealment or omission (Count I),
negligent misrepresentation (Count II), unjust enrichment (Count
III), and for a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
("NJCFA") (Count IV). He also asserts a claim on behalf of a
Georgia sub-class alleging a violation of Georgia's Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ga. Code Ann. Section 10-1-370 et
seq.

Ferrari and Bosch subsequently filed motions to dismiss. Ferrari
maintains that the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil 12(b)(1) and (6), and Bosch argues that the
Complaint should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2), D.E. 25. As noted, both the Defendants also filed motions
to stay or limit discovery until the motions to dismiss are
decided.

With respect to jurisdiction, first, Judge Vazquez opines that
Ferrari's recall does not encompass all of the Plaintiff's
potential relief. He, therefore, will not exercise discretion by
dismissing the Complaint due to prudential mootness. Hence,
Ferrari's motion is denied on these grounds.

Next, he opines that the Plaintiff's allegation that Bosch is
registered to do business in New Jersey does not appear in the
Complaint, nor does he provide any documentation to support this
statement in his opposition brief. Accordingly, the Plaintiff does
not provide the Court with an adequate basis demonstrating that
Bosch is registered to do business in New Jersey. The Court,
therefore, cannot conclude that Bosch is subject to personal
jurisdiction in New Jersey through registration.

Third, Judge Vazquez opines that the Plaintiff's allegations fall
short as to a stream-of-commerce theory to establish specific
jurisdiction. In fact, the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently
establish that Bosch had any connection to New Jersey. As a result,
he cannot conclude that Bosch is subject to specific personal
jurisdiction within the State.

Lastly, Judge Vazquez opines that the Plaintiff's arguments about
Bosch's presence in the State demonstrate a reasonable possibility
of sufficient contacts in New Jersey. Accordingly, he will permit
jurisdictional discovery. Thus, Bosch's motion is denied at the
present time but following jurisdictional discovery, Bosch is given
leave to renew its motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2).

Turning to the motions to dismiss, Judge Vazquez first finds that
without plausibly alleging a duty to disclose the alleged brake
defect, the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for his three
nationwide fraud-based claims. Second, he finds that the Plaintiff
fails to plead that he will suffer any future harm from Ferrari's
ongoing deceptive trade practices or that he will be damaged absent
an injunction. This is insufficient for a claim under the Georgia
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff's Georgia
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim, therefore, is
dismissed on these grounds. Lastly, the Plaintiff implicitly pleads
that had Ferrari disclosed the brake defect, it would have been
covered under the warranty. As pled, therefore, his unjust
enrichment claim is precluded by the warranty. Count III is
dismissed.

Because this is the Plaintiff's initial Complaint, Judge Vazquez
provides the Plaintiff with leave to remedy the identified
deficiencies. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed as to Ferrari
without prejudice.

After filing their motions to dismiss, Ferrari and Bosch both filed
motions to stay discovery pending a decision on the motions to
dismiss. Bosch also filed a motion for a protective order stating
that Bosch is not required to respond to the Plaintiff's
jurisdictional discovery request until the Court decides Bosch's
motion to dismiss and requires jurisdictional discovery. Because
the Court is deciding the motions to dismiss, Ferrari and Bosch's
motions to stay discovery and for a protective order are denied
without prejudice as moot.

With respect to jurisdictional discovery, the Plaintiff and Bosch
are limited to five interrogatories, a demand for the production or
inspection of documents and other tangible items, and two
depositions. They must serve any written discovery requests within
14 days of this Opinion and responses are due within 30 days of
this Opinion. The depositions must occur within 90 days of this
Opinion.

Bosch may renew its motion for a protective order after the
Plaintiff serves his jurisdictional discovery requests. It may also
file a renewed motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
after jurisdictional discovery. Such a motion must be filed within
four months from the date of this Opinion. If Bosch does not file a
renewed motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff must file his amended
complaint within five months of this Opinion.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Vazquez grants Ferrari's motion to
dismiss and dismisses the Complaint as to Ferrari without
prejudice. He denies Bosch's motion to dismiss but gives Bosch
leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss after the completion of
jurisdictional discovery. He denies without prejudice the
Defendants' motions to stay discovery and Bosch's motion for a
protective order without prejudice. An appropriate Order
accompanies Judge Vazquez's Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3xbpz3kr from Leagle.com.


GARRETT MOTION: Consolidated Suit Reassigned to Judge Rochon
------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2022, that a consolidated
putative securities suit was reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon
on September 22, 2022.

On September 25, 2020, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed against Garrett Motion Inc. and certain current and
former Garrett officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The case bears the
caption: Steven Husson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. Garrett Motion Inc., Olivier Rabiller,
Alessandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason, and Su Ping Lu, Case
No. 1:20-cv-07992-JPC (SDNY) (the "Husson Action"). The Husson
Action asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
for securities fraud and control person liability.

On September 28, 2020, the plaintiff sought to voluntarily dismiss
his claim against Garrett Motion Inc. in light of the Company's
bankruptcy; this request was granted.

On October 5, 2020, another putative securities class action
complaint was filed against certain current and former Garrett
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. This case bears the caption: The
Gabelli Asset Fund, The Gabelli Dividend & Income Trust, The
Gabelli Value 25 Fund Inc., The Gabelli Equity Trust Inc., SM
Investors LP and SM Investors II LP, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. Su Ping Lu, Olivier Rabiller,
Alessandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason, Craig Balis, Thierry
Mabru, Russell James, Carlos M. Cardoso, Maura J. Clark, Courtney
M. Enghauser, Susan L. Main, Carsten Reinhardt, and Scott A.
Tozier, Case No. 1:20-cv-08296-JPC (SDNY) (the "Gabelli Action").
The Gabelli Action also asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On November 5, 2020, another putative securities class action
complaint was filed against certain current and former Garrett
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. This case bears the caption: Joseph
Froehlich, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Olivier Rabiller, Allesandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean
Deason, and Su Ping Lu, Case No. 1:20-cv-09279-JPC (SDNY) (the
"Froehlich Action"). The Froehlich Action also asserted claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The actions were assigned to Judge John P. Cronan. On November 24,
2020, competing motions were filed seeking the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel and the consolidation of the Husson,
Gabelli, and Froehlich Actions.

On December 8, 2020, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Gabelli
Action — the Entwistle & Cappucci law firm — filed an unopposed
stipulation and proposed order that would (1) appoint the
plaintiffs in the Gabelli Action — the "Gabelli Entities" — the
lead plaintiffs; (2) would appoint Entwistle & Cappucci as lead
counsel for the plaintiff class; and (3) consolidate the Gabelli
Action, the Husson Action, and the Froehlich Action (the
"Consolidated D&O Action").

On January 21, 2021, the Court granted the motion to consolidate
the actions and granted the Gabelli Entities' motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for selection of lead counsel. On
February 25, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint.

The Company's insurer, AIG, has accepted the defense, subject to
the customary reservation of rights.

The Company agreed with the Gabelli Entities and their lead counsel
to permit a class claim to be recognized in the bankruptcy court
and to have securities claims against the Company to be litigated
in the district court alongside the Consolidated D&O Action. The
Gabelli Entities have agreed that any recoveries against Garrett
Motion Inc. on account of securities claims litigated through the
class claim are limited to available insurance policy proceeds.

On July 2, 2021, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving
the joint request from the Company and the Gabelli Entities to
handle the securities claims against Garrett Motion Inc. in this
manner.

The Gabelli Entities were authorized, and on July 22, 2021 filed a
second amended complaint to add claims against Garrett Motion Inc.


On August 11, 2021, Garrett Motion Inc., Olivier Rabiller,
Alessandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason, Russell James, Carlos
Cardoso, Maura Clark, Courtney Enghauser, Susan Main, Carsten
Reinhardt, and Scott Tozier filed a motion to dismiss with respect
to claims asserted against them. On the same day, Su Ping Lu, who
is represented separately, filed a motion to dismiss with respect
to the claims asserted against her.

Lead plaintiffs' opposition to the motions to dismiss was filed on
October 26, 2021, and the defendant's reply briefs were filed on or
before December 8, 2021.

On March 31, 2022, the judge dismissed the complaints entirely - Su
Ping Lu's motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice while the
court granted the plaintiffs 30 days to file a third amended
complaint against the Company and the other defendants.

On May 2, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint
("TAC") against all of the foregoing Defendants apart from
Alessandro Gili and Su Ping Lu.

On June 24, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the TAC in its
entirety, with prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed their opposition on August 16, 2022, and
defendants filed their reply brief on September 23, 2022.

On September 22, 2022, the action was reassigned from Judge John P.
Cronan to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon, who was recently appointed.
.
Garrett Motion Inc. designs, manufactures and sells highly
engineered turbocharger and electric-boosting technologies and is
based in Switzerland.


GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Class Settlement in Valdez Suit Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, JUANA OLIVOS VALDEZ, an individual; DANILLIE WILLIE,
an individual; and PATRICIA THEUS, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and as aggrieved
employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004, Plaintiffs v. GENESIS HEALTHCARE LLC, a Delaware Corporation;
GENESIS HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware corporation; GENESIS
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
ALEXANDRIA CARE CENTER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
THE REHABILITATION CENTRE OF BEVERLY HILLS, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
CHRISTINE ESPINOSA, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated and other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. GENESIS HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. CV 19-976-DMG (JCx), CV
20-688-DMG (JCx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dolly M. Gee of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California grants the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Class Representative
Service Award.

Judge Gee finds that the Settlement was made and entered into in
good faith and approves the Settlement as fair, adequate and
reasonable to all Class Members. Any Class Members who have not
timely and validly requested exclusion from the Class are thus
bound by this Judgment.

Five Class Members submitted valid and timely Requests for
Exclusion and therefore will not be bound by the terms of the
Stipulation. These class members are: Maria Gabriela Ramos, Natalia
Sulistiyo, Paulette Paul, Stephanie Rollins, and Jasmine Brown.

The Plaintiffs and all other Class Members, except the Class
Members who opted-out, will have fully, finally, and forever
released, relinquished, and discharged, the Released Parties from
all Released Claims.

Judge Gee authorizes the Settlement Administrator to pay the
Individual Settlement Awards to the Class Members in accordance
with the terms of the Stipulation. If an Individual Settlement
Award check remains uncashed after 180 days from mailing, the
Settlement Administrator will pay over the amount represented by
the Individual Settlement Award check to the State Controller's
Office Unclaimed Property Fund, with the identity of the Class
Member to whom the funds belong. In such event, the Class Member
will nevertheless remain bound by the Settlement.

The Plaintiffs will each be paid a Class Representative Service
Award in the amount of $15,000 from the Maximum Settlement Amount
in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation.

The Class Counsel will be paid $2,375,000 as their attorneys' fees
and $112,688.37 for reimbursement of costs and expenses from the
Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the
Stipulation. Aequitas Legal Group will be reimbursed $20,563.09 for
its costs, and Matern Law Group will be reimbursed $92,125.28 for
its costs.

The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency will be paid
$213,750 as penalties under the Private Attorneys' General Act.

CPT Group, Inc. will be paid Settlement Administration Costs in the
amount of $58,000.

The Parties will implement the Settlement according to its terms.

Judge Gee enters judgment for the Plaintiffs and the Class Members
in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, and her Order is a
final and appealable order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bmzkjmsc from Leagle.com.


GREAT CHINA RESTAURANT: Florentino Sues Over Workers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
NAZARIO GARCIA FLORENTINO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREAT CHINA RESTAURANT, INC.
(D/B/A GREAT CHINA), SU CHEN, and YAN CHEN, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-08896 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York
Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at Great China from
approximately February 2017 until on September 6, 2022. He alleges
the failure of the Defendants to pay proper minimum wages and
overtime compensation, failure to provide with a written wage
notice and accurate wage statement, and failure to reimburse the
costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment and
"tools of the trade" required to perform Plaintiff's job.

Great China Restaurant, Inc. owns, operates, and controls a Chinese
restaurant, located at 1461 Amsterdam Ave, New York, under the name
"Great China."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GROUP HEALTH: Stipulated Order Modifying Class Cert Sched Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN PLAVIN, GARY
ALTMAN, MICHELLE DA VIS-MATLOCK, and DANIELLE THOMAS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GROUP HEALTH
INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:17-cv-01462-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Robert D. Mariani entered an stipulated order modifying schedule as
follows:

  -- The Plaintiffs' affirmative expert reports related to class
     certification, if any, are due on November 4, 2022.


  -- The Defendant's affirmative expert reports related to class
     certification, if any, are due on December 2, 2022.

  -- Supplementations to the parties' expert reports related to
     class certification, if any, are due on January 6, 2023.

  -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is due on
     January 30, 2023.

  -- The Defendant's Opposition to Class Certification due is
     due on March 13, 2023.

  -- Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification is due
     on April 10, 2023.

Group Health provides health care services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eVsBqK at no extra charge.[CC]


ILLINOIS: Judgment as Matter of Law in Phillips v. Hulett Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICIA PHILLIPS, et al., on behalf of themselves and
a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MELODY HULETT,
at al., Defendants, Case No. 12-3087 (C.D. Ill.), Judge Sue E.
Myerscough of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
Illinois, Springfield Division, denies the Defendants' Renewed
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 50(b) or, in the alternative, for a New Trial under Rule
59(e).

At the conclusion of a trial beginning on May 31, 2022, a jury
found Defendants Melody Hulett, Russell Reynolds, Renee Hatfield,
and Troy Dawdy liable for violating the rights of the Plaintiff
class of women who were subjected to strip and body cavity searches
during a March 31, 2011, cadet training exercise. The jury awarded
compensatory and punitive damages to each of the six testifying
class members: Plaintiffs Patricia Phillips, Ieshia Brown, Miranda
Howard, Teresa Williams, Veela Morris, and Michelle Wells.

After the close of evidence, the Defendants filed their Renewed
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. The motion raised a number
of grounds, including qualified immunity as to all damages claims.

Specifically, the Defendants claimed that no developed law at the
time of the strip and body cavity search told them what does or
does not constitute a reasonable search. They further asserted that
because a jury had already determined that they had not violated
the Eighth Amendment, they cannot be liable for punitive damages.
Additionally, they alleged that the entire class of Plaintiffs had
not suffered a concrete injury.

The Defendants also contended that no representative Plaintiff made
any allegations of wrongdoing as to Defendants Hatfield and Hulett.
They argued that, to the extent the Plaintiffs base their claims on
crude language, that does not give rise to a claim under the Fourth
Amendment. They further contended that, while the Plaintiffs allege
that the only physical injuries resulted from claims derived from
cuffing and standing, neither representative Plaintiff testified
that Defendants Reynolds or Dowdy had any role regarding the
cuffing or standing.

Judge Myerscough concludes that each of the Defendants' challenges
to the jury verdict are either forfeited or fail on the merits.
Accordingly, she denies the Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment
as a Matter of Law or, in the alternative, for a New Trial.

Among other things, Judge Myerscough she finds that:

           (i) it is appropriate to hold the parties to the claims
and defenses contained in the final pretrial order;

           (ii) the Defendants have forfeited the qualified
immunity defense and it would be unfair to allow them to raise
qualified immunity at the close of all evidence and following the
verdict;

           (iii) the Court has no basis to find that the punitive
damages issue was necessarily resolved by the first jury and should
not have been submitted to the second jury;

           (iv) the physical injury requirement has been forfeited
because the issue was not raised in the summary judgment motion
following the mandate;

           (v) the Defendants have forfeited any challenges to
class certification through their delay, their omission of such
challenges in the pretrial order, and their contrary stipulations;
and

           (vi) the Defendants have forfeited a challenge to
instructing the jury regarding the deference owed to prison
administrators.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2ez2csxw from Leagle.com.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Dundas Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
LINDA DUNDAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY PLC, VINCENT
SADUSKY, MARCO SALA, MASSIMILIANO CHIARA, TIMOTHY M. RISHTON, and
ALBERTO FORNARO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06094-CPO-SAK
(D.N.J., Oct. 14, 2022) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
IGT securities between March 16, 2018 and August 29, 2022, both
dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

IGT describes itself as "a global leader in gaming that delivers
entertaining and responsible gaming experiences for players across
all channels and regulated segments, from gaming machines and
lotteries to sports betting and digital." In June 2017, IGT
completed the sale of DoubleDown Interactive LLC, the operator of
an online casino called DoubleDown Casino, to DoubleU Diamond LLC.

The complaint asserts that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) IGT overstated its
compliance with gaming and lottery laws and applicable regulations;
(ii) IGT and/or one or more of its current and/or former
subsidiaries engaged in illegal gambling operations; (iii) the
foregoing conduct subjected the Company and/or its current and/or
former subsidiaries to a heightened risk of litigation and
significant related costs; (iv) the Company downplayed the full
scope and severity of its financial exposure to, and/or liabilities
in connection with, the Benson Action; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On this news, IGT's ordinary share price fell $0.46 per share, or
2.45%, to close at $18.28 per share on August 30, 2022. 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 suit.

International Game Technology PLC is a multinational gambling
company that produces slot machines and other gambling
technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

KA WAH TRADING: Cintron Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dennis S. Cintron and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s) v. Ka Wah Trading Inc. a/k/a Ka Wah Trading Foods
Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-01912 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 17, 2022) is an
action to recover from Defendant half-time overtime compensation,
retaliatory damages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted,
full-time employee from approximately June 02, 2021 to August 19,
2022, or 63 weeks. He had duties as a delivery driver, warehouse,
and cleaning employee.

Ka Wah Trading Inc. is an importer, wholesaler, and distributor of
Asian specialty food products to Asian restaurants and other Asian
wholesalers and retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

KEYBANK NATIONAL: Martins Seek Centralization of 6 Suits to W.D. Pa
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Karen Martin and Micheal Martin filed a motion for
transfer and centralization of six related actions alleging, inter
alia, negligence arising from KeyBank National Association's data
breach, as well as any tag-along actions or other cases such as may
be subsequently filed asserting related or similar claims, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, before the Honorable Judge Robert J. Colville, before
whom one of the six related actions is already pending.

The six data breach class actions filed against overlapping
Defendants - alleging similar negligence claims violations stemming
from the KeyBank Data Breach - are as follows:

a. Bozin v. KeyBank National Association, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-01536 (N.D. Ohio);

b. Marlowe v. Overby-Seawell Co., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03648
(N.D. Ga.);

c. Samsel v. Overby-Seawell Co., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03593
(N.D. Ga.);

d. Urciuoli v. KeyBank National Association, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-1598 (N.D. Ohio);

e. Martin v. KeyBank National Association, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01346 (W.D. Pa.); and

f. Archer v. Overby-Seawell Co., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03780
(N.D. Ga.)

Karen Martin and Micheal Martin are the plaintiffs in Martin v.
KeyBank National Association, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01346 (W.D.
Pa.).

The Related Actions involve one or more common questions of fact,
including:

a. whether Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated class members to protect personally identifiable
information;

b. whether Defendants failed to provide reasonable security to
protect PII;

c. whether Defendants negligently or otherwise improperly allowed
PII to be accessed by third parties;

d. whether Defendant failed to adequately notify Plaintiffs and
similarly situated class members that its data systems were
breached;

e. whether Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members
suffered legally cognizable damages as a result of the KeyBank Data
Breach, and, if so, in what amount; and

f. whether Plaintiff and class members are entitled to declaratory
judgment.

The Plaintiffs assert that centralization of the KeyBank Data
Breach actions will prevent duplication of discovery, eliminate the
possibility of conflicting pretrial rulings, and conserve judicial
resources.

KeyBank National Association is a regional bank headquartered in
Cleveland, Ohio, and is the only major bank based in
Cleveland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

KIA AMERICA: Spores Files Suit Over Defective Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------
JEFF SPORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIA AMERICA, INC., HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
and HYUNDAI AMERICA TECHNICAL CENTER, INC., Defendants, Case No.
0:22-cv-02583 (D. Minn., Oct. 17, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for fraudulent omission, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act and
Minnesota's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

During the Class Period, the Defendants designed, manufactured, and
sold vehicles to Plaintiff and other Class Members. The Defendants
concealed or otherwise failed to disclose, reveal, or provide
notice to customers, including Plaintiff, in Defendants'
advertising, labeling or otherwise, that these vehicles are
defective and are not fit for their ordinary purpose of safe,
reliable transportation. The Defective Vehicles include all
2011-2021 Kia models and all 2015-2021 Hyundai vehicles with key
ignition systems. These vehicles all lack an engine immobilizer.
Defendants' failure to include this safety equipment makes it very
easy for the Class Vehicles to be stolen, rendering them less
secure, unsafe and worth less than they would have been, had they
not had the defect, says the suit.

Had Plaintiff and Class Members known about the defect, they would
not have purchased or leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid
less for them. As a result of Defendants acts and/or omissions,
owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles have suffered
ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or loss in the value of
their Class Vehicles, the suit asserts.

Kia America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: r.yard@rwblawfirm.com
                  g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

LABOR SOURCE: Faces Cox Suit Over Manual Laborers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES COX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LABOR SOURCE, LLC, d/b/a ONE SOURCE LABOR &
STAFFING, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02420-JAR-ADM (D. Kan., Oct.
17, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards, the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act, and the New York Labor Law and their implementing
regulations.

Mr. Cox performed manual labor for Labor Source from September
until January of 2020. While working for Labor Source, Plaintiff
and others similarly situated were not paid for travel time. In
addition, Labor Source made improper deductions from the paychecks
of Mr. Cox and others similarly situated, purportedly for room and
board, travel costs, shuttle fees, and other fees. There are a
large number of current and former Labor Source employees who have
been victims of these company-wide policies that violate state and
federal minimum wage and overtime laws, says the suit.

Labor Source, LLC is a staffing company that recruits and assigns
workers to other companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          8201 Mission Rd., Suite 250
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 766-5585
          Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
          E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
                  www.rmlegalgroup.com

               - and -

          Josh Borsellino, Esq.
          BORSELLINO, P.C.
          1020 Macon St., Suite 15
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 908-9861
          Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
          E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com

LH MERCANTILE: Anthony Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APIPHANNI ANTHONY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LH MERCANTILE, L.L.C. d/b/a PET
SUPPLIES PLUS, Defendant, Case No. 2022LA000914 (Ill. Cir., 18th
Judicial, Dupage Cty., Oct. 17, 2022) seeks to stop Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's
and the proposed Class' sensitive, private, and personal biometric
data in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant, upon information and belief,
mandated and required that employees have finger(s) scanned by a
biometric timekeeping device. This exposes Defendant's employees,
including Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees'
biometric data in violation of BIPA, says the suit.

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

LH Mercantile, L.L.C. is a locally owned franchise of Pet Supplies
Plus with 13 locations throughout the Chicago suburbs and Northwest
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LINDE INC: Evangelista Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
HERMIE EVANGELISTA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINDE INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV33708 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Oct. 17, 2022) challenges systemic illegal employment
practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code
against individuals who worked for the Defendants.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants, jointly and severally,
have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to:
(a) provide paid rest breaks; (b) pay all wages owed upon
separation of employment; (c) provide accurate and itemized wage
statements; and (d) reimburse business expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a truck driver
during the approximate period of June 13, 2022 to August 1, 2022.

Linde Inc. is an industrial gas and engineering company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

LULIFAMA.COM LLC: Pop Sues Over Undisclosed Paid Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
ALIN POP, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LULIFAMA.COM. LLC, MY LULIBABE, LLC, LOURDES
HANIMIAN a/k/a LULI HANIMIAN, TAYLOR MACKENZIE GALLO a/k/a TEQUILA
TAYLOR, ALEXA COLLINS, ALLISON MARTINEZ a/k/a ALLI MARTINEZ, CINDY
PRADO, GABRIELLE EPSTEIN, HALEY PALVE a/k/a HALEY FERGUSON, LEIDY
AMELIA LABRADOR, PRISCILLA RICART, Defendants, Case No.
22-004923-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., Oct. 17,
2022) is a class action seeking monetary damages, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief from the Defendants and so-called
"influencers" for illegally promoting Luli Fama swimwear products
in violation of the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

During the Class Period, the influencers allegedly misrepresented
the material relationship they have with the brand by promoting
Luli Fama products without disclosing the fact that they were paid
to do it, in violation of the law. In order to artificially inflate
the prices for the Luli Fama products, both Luli Fama and the
influencers devised a scheme in which the influencers tag or
recommend Luli Fama products, pretending they are disinterested and
unaffiliated consumers. Relying on the undisclosed paid
advertising, the named Plaintiff and the class members purchased
products that proved to be of a lower value than the price paid and
therefore suffered damages, says the suit.

Luli Fama is a swimwear designer, manufacturer and reseller that
came to fame with the rise of Instagram.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
     
          Bogdan Enica, Esq.
          PRACTUS, LLP  
          66 West Flagler St. Ste. 937
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 539-9206
          E-mail: Bogdan.Enica@practus.com

               - and -

          Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
          PRACTUS, LLP  
          11300 Tomahawk Crk. Pkwy. Ste. 310
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (630) 677-6745
          E-mail: Keith.Gibson@practus.com

MDL 2873: Wheedleton Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE WHEEDLETON and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.;
KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE; Case No. 2:22-cv-03607-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 18, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict
liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.

This suit deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) that were
designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds. AFFF
compounding includes Perfluoro octane Sulfonate (commonly known as
PFOS), PerfluorooctanoicAcid (commonly known as PFOA), and/or other
Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with PFOS and PFOA,
commonly known as PFAS) which are manmade organofluorine compounds
(in this case commonly referred to as fluorinated
surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants). The compounds are designed
to lower the surface tension of water so as to create a
firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for
example, jet fuel fires.

The Plaintiff joined the U.S. Navy and was subsequently assigned to
NAS Whiting Field, Florida (1975). At all times relevant, Plaintiff
lived/worked on Base at NAS Whiting Field using and drinking the
water. On information and belief, NAS Whiting Field has a PFAS
environmental contamination level of 232,000ppt (EPA max of 70ppt).
In 2017, Wheedleton was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via
nephrectomy. As known by Defendants, kidney cancer is a disease
linked to PFAS contamination, says the suit.

The Wheedleton case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
          VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
          700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (888) 215-7834
          E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com  

               - and -

          S. James Boumil, Esq.
          BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
          120 Fairmount Street
          Lowell, MA, 01852
          Telephone: (978) 458-0507
          E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com

               - and -


          Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
          KYROS LAW
          17 Miles Rd.
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (800) 934-2921
          E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

MDL 2913: Aberdeen School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------
ABERDEEN SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP,
INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU
MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03748 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 18,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for public nuisance,
negligence, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' marketing strategy,
advertising, and product design targets minors, especially
school-age minors, and has dramatically increased the use of
e-cigarettes amongst the student body of the Aberdeen School
District. The Defendants' conduct has caused many students to
become addicted to Defendants' e-cigarette products, says the
suit.

Plaintiff Aberdeen School District, and similarly situated school
districts in the State of Mississippi, have redirected significant
resources to combat Defendants' deceptive marketing scheme, to
educate its students on the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette
products and to prevent the possession and use of Defendants'
e-cigarette products on Plaintiffs' property.

The Aberdeen School District case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Aberdeen School District is a public school district organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Mississippi.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      
         T. Roe Frazer II, Esq.
         T. Roe Frazer III, Esq.
         FRAZER PLC
         30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450
         Nashville, TN 37215
         Telephone: (615) 647-6464
         E-mail: roe@frazer.law
                 trey@frazer.law

MDL 2913: Jefferson Davis Cty. Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERSON DAVIS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; NU MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM
BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06146 (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 18, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for public
nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' marketing strategy,
advertising, and product design targets minors, especially
school-age minors, and has dramatically increased the use of
e-cigarettes amongst the student body of the Jefferson Davis County
School District. The Defendants' conduct has caused many students
to become addicted to Defendants' e-cigarette products, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Mississippi, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' deceptive marketing scheme, to educate its students on
the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette products and to prevent
the possession and use of Defendants' e-cigarette products on
Plaintiffs' property.

The Jefferson Davis County School District case has been
consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Jefferson Davis County School District is a public school district
organized and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of
Mississippi.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      
         T. Roe Frazer II, Esq.
         T. Roe Frazer III, Esq.
         FRAZER PLC
         30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450
         Nashville, TN 37215
         Telephone: (615) 647-6464
         E-mail: roe@frazer.law
                 trey@frazer.law

META PLATFORMS: Tracks Users' Online Activity, Radonsky Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TODD J. RADONSKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-06111 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 17, 2022) is a class action filed on
behalf of, and seeks relief for, all persons who used Meta's
Facebook, Instagram, and/or Messenger app and whose private
browsing activity and communications were surreptitiously
intercepted, monitored and recorded by Meta's in-app Internet
browsers in violation of the Wiretap Act, the California Invasion
of Privacy Act, and the Unfair Competition Law.

In April 2021, Apple's iOS 14 update required Meta to obtain its
users' informed consent before tracking their Internet activity on
apps and third-party websites. As a result, Meta lost access to its
primary stream of revenue, which it derived from the user data it
obtained from this tracking. Now, even when users do not consent to
being tracked, Meta tracks Instagram and Facebook users' online
activity and communications with external third-party websites by
injecting JavaScript code into those sites, says the suit.

Meta's undisclosed tracking of users' browsing activity and
communications violates federal and state wiretap laws and other
laws, entitling Plaintiff and Class members to damages. The
Plaintiff and Class members also seek injunctive relief and
equitable remedies to stop Meta's undisclosed and non-consensual
tracking, the suit asserts.

Meta Platforms, Inc. doing business as Meta and formerly named
Facebook, Inc., and The Facebook, Inc., is an American
multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Muller, Esq.
          VENTURA HERSEY & MULLER, LLP
          1506 Hamilton Avenue
          San Jose, CA 95125
          Telephone: (408) 512-3022
          Facsimile: (408) 512-3023
          E-mail: dmuller@venturahersey.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (888) 711-9975
          Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
          E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                  mbd@sstriallawyers.com

               - and -

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485  
          E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          205 N. Monroe St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 964-2808
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

MGM RESORTS: Lucas Suit Seeks to Certify Plan Beneficiary Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EBONI D. LUCAS, JEREMY
GOARD, and SHAWNDREA STAFFORD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, THE
INTERNAL COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, THE
ADMINSTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, and JOHN DOES
1-30, Case No. 2:20-cv-01750-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a proposed Class:

      "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
      members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
      Plan, at any time between September 23, 2014 through the
      date of judgment, excluding any class member who executed
      an applicable release;"

   2. appointing them as representatives of the proposed class;
      and

   3. appointing their counsel, Capozzi Adler, P.C., as Class
      Counsel.

The Plaintiffs asserts that their ERISA claims satisfy the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b):

   (1) there are more than twenty-thousand participants in the
       Plan;

   (2) Plaintiffs are typical of the participants;

   (3) common issues abound regarding the manner in which
       Defendants managed the Plan’s assets; and

   (4) Plaintiffs have retained experienced class counsel and
       are adequate to represent the interests of the class.

MGM is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary of the Plan. The Plan
"provides eligible employees with the ability to accumulate
long-term retirement savings through contributions to individual
participant accounts."


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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Martin L. Welsh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HAYES & WELSH
          199 North Arroyo Grand Boulevard, Suite 200
          Henderson, NV 89074
          Telephone: (702) 509-7310
          Facsimile: (702) 434-3739
          E-mail: mwelsh@lvlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh,Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com

NAVY FEDERAL: Wilson Sues Over Fraudulent Money Transfer System
---------------------------------------------------------------
GREGGORY WILSON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01176 (E.D. Va., Oct. 18, 2022) is
brought as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly
situated customers of Navy Federal who have been the victim of
fraud on the Zelle service, who have incurred losses due to that
fraud that have not been reimbursed by NFCU, and who were entitled
by NFCU's contract promises and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to
a full reimbursement of losses caused by fraud on the Zelle
service.

According to the complaint, NFCU fails victims of Zelle money
transfer system fraud in two distinct ways. First, NFCU maintains a
massive bureaucratic apparatus designed to make it impossible for
victims of Zelle fraud to lodge a successful fraud claim. When such
victims make a claim for fraud, and as occurred to Plaintiff, NFCU
denies the claim without conducting a full investigation and blames
fraud victims for the fraud. As occurred with Plaintiff, NFCU
summarily rejected fraud claims without explanation or recourse.
Second, NFCU violates plain promises in its contract documents that
its' accountholders will be protected in the event of fraudulent
Zelle transfers, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, punitive damages, restitution,
and an injunction on behalf of the general public to prevent Navy
Federal from continuing to engage in its alleged illegal practices
as described in this complaint.

Navy Federal Credit Union is a national credit union with its
principal place of business in Vienna, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather Whitaker Goldstein, Esq.
          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 N. Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
          E-mail: hgoldstein@vwlawfirm.com
                  dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielgold.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417  
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  chris@edelsberglaw.com

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Antirust Suits Summary Judgment Set for 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2022, that the summary
judgment trial for the antitrust class suits is set for the first
quarter of 2023.

In 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against us and other
Class I railroads in various Federal district courts regarding fuel
surcharges were consolidated in the District of Columbia by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
In 2012, the court certified the case as a class action. The
defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District Court’s
decision and remanded the case for further consideration.

On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied class certification.


The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals on August 16, 2019.
Since that decision, various individual cases have been filed in
multiple jurisdictions and also consolidated in the District of
Columbia. The Company believe the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the cases. The
Company do not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a
material effect on its financial position, results of operations,
or liquidity.

In 2018, a lawsuit was filed against one of its subsidiaries by the
minority owner in a jointly-owned terminal railroad company in
which its subsidiary has the majority ownership.

The lawsuit alleged violations of various state laws and federal
antitrust laws.

Summary judgment has been briefed but not decided, and trial is
likely to occur in the first quarter of 2023.

Norfolk Southern Corporation is a transportation company based in
Georgia.


NY DESSERT: Faces Kerdniyom Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
LAMDUAN KERDNIYOM, on behalf of herself, individually, and all
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. NY DESSERT & DRINKS,
INC. d/b/a BAMBU, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-06268 (E.D.N.Y., Oct.
17, 2022) arises from the Defendant's willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the supporting
New York State Department of Labor Regulations.

The Plaintiff's complaint arises from the Defendant's failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread of hours compensation,
failure to issue timely payment of wages, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, and failure to provide a wage notice.

The Plaintiff commenced her employment with the Defendant in June
2016 as a prep cook and kitchen employee, a position that she held
until September 19, 2021.

NY Dessert & Drinks, Inc. is a company that serves bubble tea,
juice drinks, smoothies and a variety of Vietnamese cuisine at its
Bambu restaurant located in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588

PAYCOR INC: Terry Seeks Court-Authorized Notice for FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eric Terry, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the proposed
Ohio Rule 23 Class, v. Paycor, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00419-MRB
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff files a motion for court-authorized
notice Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Paycor operates as a software company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TQOPc6
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: srey@nka.com
                  dbrome@nka.com

               - and -

          Lindsey Wagner, Esq.
          WAGNER LEGAL, P.C.
          3727 W. Magnolia Ave. No. 1065
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (213) 584-2050
          E-mail: lindsey@wagnerlegalpc.com


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Passman, et al., File Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC PASSMAN and ISHMAEL
ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11711-LJL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting their motion for class certification;

   2. certifying the proposed Class as defined in the
      accompanying Memorandum of Law;

   3. appointing Mr. Passman and Mr. Alvarado as Class
      Representatives; and

   4. appointing the undersigned counsel as Class Counsel.

Peloton Interactive is an American exercise equipment and media
company based in New York City. Peloton's main products are
Internet-connected stationary bicycles and treadmills that enable
monthly subscribers to remotely participate in classes via
streaming media.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 17,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fopdzs
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Benjamin J. Whiting, Esq.
           Ashley C. Keller, Esq.
           Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
           KELLER POSTMAN LLC
           150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100
           Chicago, IL 60606
           Telephone: (312) 741-5222
           E-mail: ben.whiting@kellerpostman.com
                   ack@kellerpostman.com
                   ajd@kellerpostman.com

                - and -

           Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
           Adam Prom, Esq., Esq.
           Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
           Chuck Dender, Esq.
           DI CELLO LEVITT LLC
           Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
           Chicago, IL 60602
           Telephone: (312) 214-7900
           E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                   aprom@dicellolevitt.com
                   ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com
                    cdender@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

           Aaron M. Zigler
           ZIGLER LAW GROUP, LLC
           308 South Jefferson Street, Suite 333
           Chicago, IL 60661
           Telephone: (312) 673-8427
           E-mail: aaron@ziglerlawgroup.com       

PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Lemmon Seeks to Certify Indigent Persons Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDDIE LEE LEMMON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PIERCE COUNTY, a Washington municipality, Case No.
3:21-cv-05390-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief on behalf of a proposed class of:

   "indigent persons who owe or will owe LFOs in relation to
   criminal cases prosecuted in Pierce County Superior Court and
   whose LFO accounts have been or will be referred to a
   commercial collection agency. He now moves for certification
   of the proposed class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
   23(a) and (b)(2).

This case is ideally suited for certification because Pierce County
engages in a common course of conduct, making final declaratory and
injunctive relief appropriate as to the class as whole. In
addition, the class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable,
there are common issues of law and fact, and Mr. Lemmon is a
typical and adequate class representative. Mr. Lemmon therefore
requests that the Court grant his motion.

Mr. Lemmon is a 56‐year‐old military veteran with disabilities
who is an indigent resident of Pierce County. He has outstanding
legal financial obligations (LFOs) imposed by Pierce County
Superior Court.

When the County Clerk referred Mr. Lemmon's LFO 5 account to
commercial collection agency AllianceOne Receivables Management,
Inc., it referred $900 -- the original balance of $800, plus a $100
collection fee -- and began charging interest at a rate of 12% per
annum. The County also directed AllianceOne to immediately impose
on the account a $23.4568 collection fee for every $100 referred
and to take an additional 23.4568% of any funds collected, whether
principal or interest, pursuant to its contract with the County.

These additional fees are now part of Mr. Lemmon's LFO balance,
which has nearly tripled to more than $2,300. Pierce County did not
inquire into Mr. Lemmon's ability to pay or determine that his
nonpayment was willful when it punished him with added charges
through May 2018. The County sent Mr. Lemmon a form letter that
failed to explain that he had a right to an ability‐to‐pay
hearing, that the County would not add charges if he was found to
be unable to pay his LFOs, and that he could ask to have the debt
reduced or waived because of inability to pay.

Mr. Lemmon is currently indigent, but he remains subject to
collections for the added costs that Pierce County imposed on him
as punishment.

Mr. Lemmon brings this civil rights lawsuit to challenge the
constitutionality of Pierce County's policy, practice, and custom
of referring the LFO accounts of indigent people to commercial
collection agencies and, in the process, automatically imposing
additional, excessive punishment on them in the form of collection
charges without first inquiring into ability to pay or determining
whether nonpayment was willful. The additional charges
significantly increase the length of time an indigent person
remains subject to the jurisdiction of the court which, in turn,
extends the collateral consequences associated with having an
active record, including impacts on employment, access to housing
and financial assistance, damage to credit, and limitations on
establishing bank accounts.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          Eric R. Nusser, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103‐8869
          Telephone: (206) 816‐6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450
          E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
                  eric@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Taryn M. Darling, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
          WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
          P.O. Box 2728
          Seattle, WA 98111‐2728
          Telephone: (206) 624‐2184
          Facsimile: (206) 624‐2190
          E-mail: tdarling@aclu‐wa.org

PIES INC: Dumitrascu Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
RADU DUMITRASCU, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. PIES, INC., and DAVID L. CESARINI,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-12504-SJM-DRG (E.D. Mich., Oct. 18,
2022) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
arising from Defendants' use of a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
February 2021 to July 2021 as a delivery driver at Defendants'
Domino's store located in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Pies, Inc. operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: jforester@foresterhaynie.com

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Bid to Amend Judgment in United Food Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
LOCAL 464A, TRUSTEES OF WELFARE AND PENSION FUNDS OF LOCAL
464A—PENSION FUND, TRUSTEES OF RETIREMENT PLAN FOR OFFICERS,
BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES AND OFFICE EMPLOYEES OF LOCAL 464A,
TRUSTEES OF LOCAL 464A FINAST FULL TIME EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN,
TRUSTEES OF LOCAL 464A WELFARE AND PENSION BUILDING INC., TRUSTEES
OF NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY AMALGAMATED PENSION PLAN FOR ACME EMPLOYEES,
and NEW MEXICO STATE INVESTMENT COUNCIL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PILGRIM'S PRIDE
CORPORATION, JAYSON J. PENN, WILLIAM W. LOVETTE, and FABIO SANDRI,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-cv-01966-RM-MEH (D. Colo.), Judge
Raymond P. Moore of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado denies the Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment.

Before the Court is the Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment, seeking leave to amend the Complaint on the grounds of
new evidence.

The Lead Plaintiff brought this action against Pilgrim's and three
of its officers on behalf of all persons or entities that acquired
common stock of the corporation between Feb. 9, 2017, and June 2,
2020. The three individual Defendants have served as president and
CEO of Pilgrim's, one of the nation's leading chicken producers.

On March 8, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the 110-page Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
("the Complaint"), asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Lead Plaintiff
contended that the Defendants deceived investors by touting
Pilgrim's performance during the class period while continuing to
participate in an undisclosed and illegal bid-rigging conspiracy.

Now, the Lead Plaintiff asserts it has discovered new evidence
which cures the deficiencies identified in the Court's Order. Along
with its Motion, it has submitted a 123-page Proposed Amended
Complaint, providing additional allegations gleaned from testimony
at consecutive criminal trials regarding the same bid-rigging
conspiracy against multiple executives of chicken producers (the
"First and Second Criminal Trials"), including Defendants Penn and
Lovette. After two mistrials, a third trial ended in acquittals for
each defendant.

The Lead Plaintiff's new allegations are also based on an
indictment against four additional Pilgrim's executives in another
case (the "McGuire Indictment"). That case ended after the court
found the United States had not met its burden under Fed. R. Evid.
801(d)(2)(E) of demonstrating a price-fixing or bid-rigging
conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence, prompting the United
States to move to dismiss the case without prejudice.

The Defendants contend that Plaintiff's purportedly new evidence
was available before entry of judgment and that its proposed
amendment would not cure the deficiencies in the Complaint or
produce a different result.

Judge Moore agrees. He concludes that the new allegations in the
Proposed Amended Complaint fail to cure the other deficiencies in
the Complaint as well. The Lead Plaintiff concedes that the
Proposed Amended Complaint does not precisely quantify the full
impact of the Defendants' bid-rigging scheme and still has not
shown that the bid-rigging scheme had a significant impact on
Pilgrim's bottom line during the class period. And the Proposed
Amended Complaint still relies on vague statements of corporate
optimism that are incapable of objective verification, fails to
plead facts showing that the Defendants did not actually hold their
stated opinions, continues to rely on statements that amount to
non-actionable puffery, and fails to allege circumstances raising a
duty to disclose.

Accordingly, the Motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n977tyr from Leagle.com.


PRINCESS HOUSE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lawal Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFIA LAWAL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRINCESS HOUSE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-08865-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's failure to maintain, and operate its website
www.princesshouse.com to be fully accessible for the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.

Princess House, Inc. is a direct online seller of household
goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com

PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Bid to Amend Talarico's Class Definition Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RALPH TALARICO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, LLC,
d/b/a PCG, PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-2165
(E.D. Pa.), Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denies the Defendant's Motion
to Amend the Definition of the Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective to
Jan. 1, 2016.

The Court recently certified a Rule 23 class for claims of unpaid
overtime pursuant to the state Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43
Pa. Stat. Ann. Section 333.101 ("PMWA"), as of May 11, 2014, and a
final certification of the FLSA collective pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as of Jan. 1, 2015. This class is
based upon the Department of Labor's adoption of the Home Care Rule
which expanded overtime protections for homecare workers by
changing the definition of "companionship services," removing the
exemption for third-party employers and expanding protections for
live-in workers.

The Rule had an effective date of Jan. 1, 2015, but prior to that
effective date, the Rule was challenged in Home Care Ass'n of Am.
v. Weil, 78 F.Supp.3d 123 (D.D.C. Jan. 14, 2015). The district
court in Weil invalidated the new regulations, then the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the district court on
Aug. 21, 2015. While Weil was pending before the appellate court,
the Department of Labor announced that it would not enforce the
Rule until 30 days after a mandate was issued by the D.C. Circuit.
Thereafter, the DOL announced that pursuant to the D.C. Circuit
Court order, the validity of the new regulations was affirmed on
Oct. 13, 2015, the date of the mandate from the D.C. Circuit.

Despite not making the argument in opposition to the Plaintiff's
motions for conditional or final certification, the Defendant now
argues that the Plaintiff's proposed start dates of May 11, 2014
for the PMWA class and Jan. 1, 2015 for the FLSA collective are
incorrect and the certification order should be amended to allow
both to commence on Jan. 1, 2016, which the Defendants claim is the
date when the DOL began enforcing the overtime regulation at issue.
The Plaintiff opposes this motion, arguing that the majority of
courts who have decided this issue have ruled that the new rule
took effect on Jan. 1, 2015, and that the definition of the class
and collective contained in this Court's certification are
correct.

After a thorough review of all relevant caselaw, Judge Schmehl sees
no reason to depart from the general rule that all judicial
decisions apply retroactively. Accordingly, he follows the
reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in Ray, as well as the reasoning of
the majority of district courts that have opined on this issue and
concludes that the effective date of the Home Care Rule is Jan. 1,
2015. He therefore denies the Defendant's motion to amend the FLSA
collective.

The Defendant also argues that the class of the Plaintiff's PMWA
claims should be amended to a start date of Jan. 1, 2016, claiming
that the PMWA class must start on the same date as the FLSA
collective because the "very basis for the Plaintiff's claims under
the PMWA is the implementation of the new DOL rule under the FLSA
and the comparative language of the FLSA itself."

However, this claim is contradicted by the record, Judge Schmehl
finds. He says, the Plaintiff pled in his Complaint, filed on May
11, 2017, that the PMWA required overtime payments starting three
years prior to the filing of the Complaint, which is different from
the Plaintiff's allegation that he was entitled to overtime under
the FLSA beginning on Jan. 1, 2015. Domestic services employers
have not been eligible for the PMWA overtime exemption benefit for
the entire class period, and that is unaffected by the effective
date of the federal Rule at issue in the FLSA portion of this case.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to amend the PMWA class is
denied.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Amend the
Definition of the Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective to Jan. 1,
2016, is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2z3dfk65 from Leagle.com.


QUICK BOX: Tan Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE TAN, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. QUICK BOX, LLC,
et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01082-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a nationwide class for the RICO claim as
      defined as follows:

      "All consumers in the United States who, within the
      applicable statute of limitations period until the date
      notice is disseminated, were billed for products sold,
      shipped, or caused to be sold or shipped by any of the
      Defendants under the La Pura, La'Pura, 'Pura or LaPura
      brand names;" and

   2. certifying a California sub-class be certified:

      "All consumers in the California who, within the
      applicable statute of limitations period until the date
      notice is disseminated, were billed for products sold,
      shipped, or caused to be sold or shipped by any of the
      Defendants under the La Pura, La'Pura, La' Pura, or LaPura
      brand names."

      The Plaintiff requests that the following be excluded from
      the definitions:

      -- any consumer who received a full refund for the
         products, governmental entities, Defendants, any entity
         in which the Defendants have a controlling interest,
         and Defendants' officers, directors, affiliates, legal
         representatives, employees, co-conspirators,
         successors, subsidiaries, and assigns.

      -- Also excluded from the Class is any judge, justice, or
         judicial officer presiding over this matter and the
         members of their immediate families and judicial staff.

During the Class Period, the Defendants acted in tandem to defraud
consumers nationwide by making false representations about the La
Pura Products and signing people up for subscriptions without
consent. They did so as part of a racketeering conspiracy that
involved the La Pura Defendants creating dozens of shell companies,
then fraudulently applying for merchant accounts with the knowing
assistance of the Quick Box and Konnektive Defendants. They then
rotated those merchant accounts using Konnektive's software to
enable their "credit card laundering" scheme to continue.

Quick Box is a Business-to-Business (B2B) company offering
last-mile delivery, same day & on-demand delivery service.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Kneupper, Esq.
          A. Cyclone Covey, Esq.
          KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC
          17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647
          Telephone: (512) 420-8407
          E-mail: kevin@kneuppercovey.com
                  cyclone@kneuppercovey.com

RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Adames Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMANI ADAMES, on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated employees, v. RUTH'S
HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00036-CEF (N.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify case as
collective action and implementing a procedure.

Ruth's Hospitality is a dining steak house company.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Kapitan, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

               - and -

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

SALESFORCE.COM INC: Suit Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIM DAVIS, GREGOR MIGUEL,
and AMANDA BREDLOW, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. SALESFORCE.COM, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
SALESFORCE.COM, INC., MARC BENIOFF, THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, JOSEPH ALLANSON, STAN DUNLAP, and JOACHIM WETTERMARK,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01753-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying the following proposed Class:

   "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
   members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
   Plan, at any time between March 11, 2014 through July 19,
   2019 and invested in the Challenged Funds."

The Plaintiffs move for class certification because they contend
that their claims satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b):

   (1) there are more than twenty-thousand participants in the
       Plan;

   (2) Plaintiffs are typical of the participants;

   (3) common issues abound regarding the manner in which
       Defendants managed the Plan's assets; and

   (4) Plaintiffs have retained experienced class counsel and
       are adequate to represent the interests of the class.

In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert the following
claims:

   (1) Count I against the Committee Defendants for their
       failure to prudently manage the Plan's assets; and

   (2) Count II against the Monitoring Defendants for breach of
their fiduciary duties to monitor.

The Plan's assets under management for all funds as of December 31,
2021 was $6,089,495,000. During the Class Period, the number of
participants in the Plan ranged from over 27,100 to close to
50,000. As of December 31, 2020,there were 49,396 participants with
account balances in the Plan.

The Plaintiffs were participants in the Plan during the Class
Period.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eWjPJ0
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
          ROSMAN & GERMAIN APC
          16311 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436-2152
          Telephone: (818) 788-0877
          Facsimile: (818) 788-0885
          E-Mail: Germain@Lalawyer.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
                  donr@capozziadler.com

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: BART Faces Chavez Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL CHAVEZ, MARY ENGLERCONTRERAS, RHIANNON DOYLE, SUSAN
RICHARDSON, JONATHAN CASTANEDA, JAMES GILHEANY, PHI LE, GEMA
ESPINOZA-CARR, and AVIN CURRY, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. SAN FRANCISCO BAY
AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
4:22-cv-06119-DMR (N.D. Cal., Oct. 17, 2022) is a complaint against
the Defendants for employment discrimination in violation of the
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, and the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act.

This is a complaint for employment discrimination brought as a
class action by Plaintiffs and other employees holding religious
convictions against the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) vaccine. About 204
employees requested medical or religious exemptions from their
employer, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, from
COVID-19 vaccination. One in three employees requesting medical
exemptions were granted an accommodation. Of the 179 religious
objector employees, not one received an accommodation. Exclusion of
religious people from the enjoyment of a right stands in violation
of the First Amendment's religion clauses and federal and state
anti-discrimination in employment laws, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs are employees presently or previously employed by
BART (1) who have been ordered to submit to a COVID-19 vaccination,
(2) who have submitted a written request for a religious exemption,
and (3) who were not granted a religious accommodation.

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District was established as a
special district in 1957 and is a heavy-rail public transit system
that connects the San Francisco Peninsula with communities in the
East Bay and South Bay. BART began service in 1972.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin T. Snider, Esq.
          Matthew B. McReynolds, Esq.
          Milton E. Matchak, Esq.
          PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE  
          P.O. Box 276600
          Sacramento, CA 95827
          Telephone: (916) 857-6900
          E-mail: ksnider@pji.org
                  mmcreynolds@pji.org
                  mmatchak@pji.org

SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces Class Action Over Virtual Slot Machines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gambling news reports that a class action has been filed against
Scientific Games Corp. and two of its subsidiaries. The lawsuit was
submitted to Fayette Circuit Court, Kentucky.

Class Action Against Scientific Games for Offering Virtual Slot
Machines in Kentucky

The Lexington Herald Leader reported that Hannelore Boorn, a woman
living in Lexington, has filed a class action lawsuit against
several Nevada-based companies, which run online slot machine-like
games.

Boorn accuses the companies of breaching Kentucky state laws by
offering online gambling games. The lawsuit was filed after Boorn
gambled away thousands of dollars on the companies' virtual slot
machines.

In her claims against the defendants offering virtual slot machine
games, she points to unfair enrichment, and illegal gambling
operations and she also highlights that the companies should not be
allowed to keep the unjustly acquired profits. Boorn is seeking
full reimbursement and disgorgement and compensation for all legal
costs.

Scientific Games Corp. and two of its subsidiaries are the
defendants in this legal case. The case has been taken up by the
federal court in October. No other plaintiffs have joined the class
action up to now.

The Nature of the Virtual Slot Games
According to the filed class action, Boorn started playing
Scientific Games' Quick Hits, which is basically a virtual casino
slot machine, back in November 2015. She got hooked on the game and
kept on buying virtual chips to play. Eventually, the amounts she
lost over the years came up to thousands of dollars.

When a player starts the Quick Hits game for the first time, he
gets several free virtual casino chips he can use to play the game.
Once those chips are over, it is possible to buy more virtual chips
for real money and play with them. The game usually offers the
chips with a discount in order to entice players to buy more and
play more.

However, there are no payouts like at actual retail and online
casinos. The player just wins more virtual chips he can then use to
play more.

In the legal case documents, it is stated: "These free sample chips
offer a taste of gambling and are designed to encourage players to
get hooked and buy more chips for real money."

Consequently, Boorn's main allegation in her lawsuit is that these
games constitute online gambling, and the companies that offer them
violate Kentucky state laws.

In the state of Kentucky, gambling is allowed to a limited extent.
There are no casinos under state regulation and the only legitimate
form of gambling is on horse racing. [GN]

SCRIBE OPCO: Settles Class Action Over COVID-Based Layoff Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dorrian, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Scribe
Opco Inc., which does business as BIC Graphic, settled a class
action alleging it laid off hundreds of employees nationwide at the
start of the Covid-19 pandemic without providing the advance notice
required by federal law, Florida federal court records show.

All of the parties and their lawyers appeared at a mediation
session on Oct. 21 and the case has been completely settled, a
report filed with the US District Court for the Middle District of
Florida said. The report was filed that day by Carlos J. Burruezo
of Burruezo & Burruezo PLLC in Orlando. [GN]

SIG SAUER: Scheduling Order Entered in Glassock Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA GLASSOCK v. SIG
SAUER, INC., Case No. 22-cv-03095-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen R. Bough entered a scheduling order as follows:

  -- Any motion to amend the pleadings      December 30, 2022
     shall be filed on or before:

  -- Any motion to join additional          December 30, 2022
     parties shall be filed on or
     before:

  -- All pretrial discovery                 March 13, 2023
     authorized by the Federal
     Rules of Civil Procedure
     shall be completed on
     or before:

  -- The Plaintiff(s) shall file any        June 30, 2023
     reply brief on or before:

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TvpJjC at no extra charge.[CC]

SPIRIT AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Cox Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Spirit Airlines, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 26, 2022, that the company
will continue to defend itself from the purported class action
captioned Cox, et al. v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.

In 2017, the Company was sued in the Eastern District of New York
in a purported class action, Cox, et al. v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.,
alleging state-law claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment
and fraud relating to its practice of charging fees for ancillary
products and services.

The original action was dismissed by the District Court, however,
following the plaintiff's appeal to the Second Circuit, the case
was remanded to the District Court for further review on the breach
of contract claim.

A hearing on the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and
plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was held on December 10,
2021.

The Court granted the plaintiff's class certification motion on
March 29, 2022.

The Company subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration on
April 26, 2022 and an oral argument was held on May 19, 2022. It
intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

Spirit Airlines, Inc. is a major American ultra-low-cost carrier
headquartered in Miramar, Florida, in the Miami metropolitan area.
Spirit operates scheduled flights throughout the United States and
in the Caribbean and Latin America.[BN]


STRIDE INC: Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stride, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 26, 2022, that on November 19 and
December 11, 2020, respectively, two putative securities class
action lawsuits captioned Yun Chau Lee v. K12 Inc., et al, Case No.
1:20-cv-01419, and Jennifer Baig v. K12 Inc., et al, Case No.
1:20-cv-01528 were filed against the Company, one of its current
officers, and one of its former officers in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, purportedly on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock between April 27, 2020 and September 18,
2020, inclusive. The District Court dismissed the case but the
plaintiffs appealed the decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on December 1, 2021.

On February 17, 2021, the District Court consolidated the Lee Case
and the Baig Case under the caption In re K12 Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01419 (the "Consolidated Securities
Class Action"), and appointed a lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on April
5, 2021, alleging violations by the Company and the individual
defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Exchange Act, and violations by the
individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading statements and/or
omitted to disclose material facts concerning the Company's
technological capabilities and expertise to support increased
demand for virtual and blended education related to the global
emergence of COVID-19, its cybersecurity protocols and protections,
and its administrative support and training to teachers, students,
and parents. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety
on May 20, 2021, which the District Court granted, without
prejudice, on September 16, 2021.

The plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint, but
appealed the District Court's dismissal decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on December 1, 2021.


Briefing in that appeal concluded March 10, 2022, and oral argument
is scheduled for October 27, 2022.

A decision from the Court of Appeals remains outstanding.  

Stride, Inc., together with its subsidiaries is an education
services company providing virtual and blended learning. In
December 16, 2020, the company changed its name from "K12 Inc." to
Stride, Inc.

SYNTER RESOURCE: Discloses Consumers' Financial Info, Garber Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN GARBER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYNTER RESOURCE GROUP, LLC and JOHN DOES 1
to 10, Defendants, Case No. 2022CP1004809 (S.C. Com. Pl., 9th
Judicial, Charleston Cty., Oct. 14, 2022) is a putative class
action arising from Defendant's unlawful disclosure of private
financial information to third parties without the prior consent of
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers, in violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant has asserted that Plaintiff allegedly incurred or
owed a certain financial obligation arising out of a personal
account. The debt arose from one or more transactions which were
primarily for personal, family or household purposes.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's disclosure of sensitive
financial information to third parties is an act consistent with a
course of conduct and practice which was either designed to, or had
as its natural consequence, an attempt to obtain money from
consumers through the use of false, misleading, deceptive, abusive,
unfair, unconscionable, and unlawful conduct prohibited by common
law and statutory law including, but not limited to FDCPA, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover equitable relief, statutory damages,
actual damages, and attorney's fees and costs on behalf of himself
and all class members under the claims asserted herein.

Synter Resource Group, LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary Leigh Arnold, Esq.
          MARY LEIGH ARNOLD P.A.
          749 Johnnie Dodds Blvd, Suite B
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 971-6053

               - and -

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411
          Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone & Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
                  pstern@kimlf.com

TAYLOR MORRISON: Appeals Court Decision on Homeowners' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Morrison Home Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 26, 2022, that a
class action lawsuit filed against the company alleging violations
under various laws relating to homeowner associations is still on
appeal as of September 30, 2022.

On April 26, 2017, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County,
Florida by Norman Gundel, William Mann, and Brenda Taylor against
Avatar Properties, Inc. (an acquired AV Homes entity), generally
alleging that the Company's collection of club membership fees in
connection with the use of one of its amenities in its East
homebuilding segment violates various laws relating to homeowner
associations and other Florida-specific laws.

The class action complaint seeks an injunction to prohibit future
collection of club membership fees.

On November 2, 2021, the court determined that the club membership
fees were improper and that plaintiffs were entitled to $35.0
million in fee reimbursements.

The Company appealed the court's ruling to the Second District
Court of Appeal on November 29, 2021, and as of September 30, 2022,
its appeal remains pending. Plaintiffs have agreed to continue to
pay club membership fees pending the outcome of the appeal.

Taylor Morrison Home Corporation is into residential homebuilding
and the development of lifestyle communities based in Arizona.

TCP HOT: Delcid, et al., Seek to Initially Certify Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OTTO DELCID, LUZ ROMAN,
MINA KALLAMNI, MARY MOLINA, CARLO GARCIA, and ANDREA FAHEY on
behalf themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TCP HOT
ACQUISITION LLC and IDELLE LABS, LTD, Case No. 1:21-cv-09569-DLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court to enter an order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e):

   1. preliminarily approving this proposed class action
      settlement;

   2. preliminarily certifying the class for settlement
      purposes; and

   3. granting approval of the proposed notice plan.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 14, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DpePWV at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
           Joseph Lipari, Esq.
           Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
           THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
           85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
           Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
           Telephone: (845) 483-7100
           Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
           E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                   liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                   markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

                - and -

           Max S. Roberts, Esq.
           Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
           BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
           888 Seventh Avenue
           New York, NY 10019
           Telephone: (646) 837-7150
           Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
           E-Mail: mroberts@bursor.com
                    swestcot@bursor.com

                - and -

           Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
           David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
           LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
           510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
           Philadelphia, PA 19106
           Telephone: (215) 592-1500
           E-Mail: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
                   cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

                 - and -

           Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
           Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
           Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq.
           MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
           PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
           6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
           Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
           Telephone: (313) 303-3472
           Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
           E-Mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
                   jczeisler@milberg.com
                   gwhitener@milberg.com
                   rbusch@milberg.com

TESLA INC: Jury Trial on Twitter Post Suit Set for Jan. 1, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 24, 2022, that the jury trial to
decide the reliance and materiality of the stockholder class action
against Elon Musk and Tesla related to Musk's August 7, 2018
Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private is
scheduled on January 17, 2023.

Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported
stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in
connection with Mr. Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was
considering taking Tesla private.

All of the suits are now pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Although the complaints vary in
certain respects, they each purport to assert claims for violations
of federal securities laws related to Mr. Musk's statement and seek
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Tesla's securities. Plaintiffs
filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019 and added as
defendants the members of Tesla's board of directors.

The now-consolidated purported stockholder class action was stayed
while the issue of selection of lead counsel was briefed and argued
before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled regarding lead
counsel.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 22,
2019.

The hearing on the motion was held on March 6, 2020.

On April 15, 2020, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.


The parties stipulated to certification of a class of stockholders,
which the court granted on November 25, 2020.

On January 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary
judgment.

On April 1, 2022, the Court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment.

The Company disagrees with the ruling and accordingly, on April 22,
2022, asked the Court for reconsideration or, in the alternative,
certification to file an interlocutory appeal.

On June 16, 2022, in response to Tesla's motions, the Court denied
certification to appeal and declined to reconsider its opinion but
clarified its summary judgment ruling to make clear that it had not
ruled that any misstatements it identified met the required
materiality element under the securities statute.

The issue of materiality and reliance will both be questions for
the jury to decide at trial, which is set for January 17, 2023.

Tesla, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, tests, markets,
distributes, sells, and leases electric vehicles under the brand
name "Tesla."[BN]

TESLA INC: Trial on Award-Related Suit Set for Nov.14-18
--------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 24, 2022, that the 2018 CEO
Performance Award-related litigation trial is set for November
14-18, 2022.

On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Elon Musk and the members of Tesla's board of directors as
then constituted, alleging corporate waste, unjust enrichment and
that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the stock-based compensation plan awarded to Elon Musk in
2018. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and
rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan.

On August 31, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint; plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 1,
2018; and defendants filed a reply brief on December 13, 2018.

The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on May 9, 2019.

On September 20, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss as
to the corporate waste claim but denied the motion as to the breach
of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. Defendants' answer
was filed on December 3, 2019.

On January 25, 2021, the Court conditionally certified certain
claims and a class of Tesla stockholders as a class action.

On September 30, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a
verified amended derivative complaint.

On October 1, 2021, defendants Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson
moved for summary judgment as to the claims against them.

Following the motion, plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss the
claims against Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson. Plaintiff also
moved for summary judgment on October 1, 2021.

On October 27, 2021, the Court approved the parties' joint
stipulation that, among other things, (a) all claims against Kimbal
Musk and Steve Jurvetson in the Complaint are dismissed with
prejudice; (b) the class is decertified and the action shall
continue exclusively as a derivative action under Court of Chancery
Rule 23.1; and (c) the direct claims against the remaining
defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

On November 18, 2021, the remaining defendants (a) moved for
partial summary judgment, (b) opposed plaintiff's summary judgment
motion and (c) opposed the plaintiff’s motion to amend his
complaint.

In January 2022, the case was assigned to a different judge.

On February 24, 2022, the court (i) granted plaintiff's motion to
amend his complaint, and (ii) canceled oral argument on the summary
judgment motions, stating that the court is "skeptical that this
litigation can be resolved based on the undisputed facts" and the
"case is going to trial," but that the "parties may reassert their
arguments made in support of summary judgment in their pre-trial
and post-trial briefs."

Trial is currently set for November 14-18, 2022.

Tesla, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, tests, markets,
distributes, sells, and leases electric vehicles under the brand
name "Tesla."[BN]

TJX COMPANIES: Faces Barrett Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
TROY BARRETT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 221001405
(Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., Oct. 17, 2022) seeks all
available relief under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act arising
from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff for
time associated with certain required activities.

The Defendant violated the PMWA by failing to pay Plaintiff and
other class members overtime premium compensation for time spent:
(i) walking within the distribution center to time clocks at the
beginning of the workday; (ii) waiting at time clocks at the
beginning of the workday; and (iii) walking within the distribution
center from time clocks at the end of the workday, says the suit.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at Pittston
distribution center since approximately June 2022.

The TJX Companies, Inc. is an off-price apparel and home fashions
retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq.
          Michelle L. Tolodziecki, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491

               - and -

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Krysten Connon, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (267) 256-9973

TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing to January 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM SQUIRES, JESSE
BADKE, AHMED KHALIL, DOMINICK VISCARDI, MICHELLE NIDEVER,
JOHN MURPHY, KEVIN NEUER, and WILLIAMS on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORP, TOYOTA MOTOR
NORTH AMERICA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Case No.
4:18-cv-00138-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order to continue the currently scheduled Class
Certification hearing set for January 13, 2023, to January 30 or
31, 2023.

Toyota Motor is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer
headquartered in Toyota City, Aichi, Japan.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 14, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3f0IegD at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by

          Thomas M. Melsheimer, Esq.
          M. Brett Johnson, Esq.
          Natalie L. Arbaugh, Esq.
          Ahtoosa A. Dale, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          2121 N. Pearl Street, Suite 900
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 453-6500
          Facsimile: (214) 453-6400
          E-mail: tmelsheimer@winston.com
                  mbjohnson@winston.com
                  narbaugh@winston.com
                  adale@winston.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth S. Forrest, Esq.
          SIEBMAN FORREST BURG & SMITH, LLP
          Federal Courthouse Square, 300 N. Travis
          Sherman, TX 75090
          Telephone: (903) 870-0070
          Facsimile: (903) 870-0066
          E-mail: elizabethforrest@siebman.com

TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Info Production Dispute in Wollam Suit Resolved
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CYNTHIA WOLLAM, Plaintiff v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09134-JST (VKD) (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Virgnia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California requires Transamerica
to produce contact information for the relevant policy owners, but
defers decision regarding production of contact information for
beneficiaries, subject to further proceedings.

The parties ask the Court to resolve a dispute regarding the
Plaintiff's request for production of the contact information of
potential class members. The Court held a hearing on this dispute
on Oct. 20, 2022.

On behalf of herself and a putative class, Ms. Wollam alleges that
Transamerica systematically failed to comply with the notice and
grace period provisions of California Insurance Code sections
10113.71 and 10113.72 on Jan. 1, 2013. The parties represented at
the hearing that they have agreed that Transamerica will produce
specific information concerning the relevant insurance policies
responsive to the Plaintiff's Interrogatories Nos. 17, 19, and 20
and Request for Production No. 34. That production will include
information concerning responsive policies that lapsed or
terminated due to nonpayment of premium.

The parties disagree about whether Transamerica should be required
to provide contact information for the owners of those responsive
policies and for the beneficiaries of those responsive policies
where the insured has died.

Ms. Wollam argues that she requires contact information so that she
can develop evidence that the proposed class meets the requirements
of Rule 23 and to address Transamerica's anticipated arguments in
opposition to class certification that assessing the reasons for
lapse or termination of the policies at issue requires an
individualized determination.

Transamerica responds that Ms. Wollam should not be permitted to
obtain contact information because she cannot make a prima facie
showing that the requirements of Rule 23 are met or that discovery
is likely to substantiate her class allegations. It argues that Ms.
Wollam's theory of class certification -- i.e. its alleged failure
to comply with insurance code provisions -- does not depend on
information Ms. Wollam might obtain from individual class members.
Rather, it expects that she wishes to obtain contact information
for policy owners and beneficiaries so that she can recruit
replacement or additional class members.

Judge DeMarchi holds that the plausible allegations of the
complaint are sufficient to warrant pre-certification discovery of
class member contact information, so long as that discovery is not
unduly burdensome. With respect to the burden of producing contact
information, she only requires production of contact information
for owners of responsive policies at this time, and defers deciding
whether to require production of contact information for
beneficiaries of responsive policies that have lapsed or terminated
until Transamerica identifies the number of policies.

Ms. Wollam may obtain discovery of contact information for those
putative class members who are the owners of relevant insurance
policies responsive to the Plaintiff's Interrogatories Nos. 17, 19,
and 20 and Request for Production No. 34. Such production will be
made as soon as practicable, subject to resolution of any dispute
regarding the procedures governing the production and use of such
contact information, as discussed below.

by Nov. 4, 2022, the parties will file a supplemental discovery
dispute submission advising the Court of the (1) the number of
responsive policies where the insured has died, and (2) an estimate
of the time and effort required for Transamerica to produce contact
information for the beneficiaries of those policies.

The parties' discovery dispute letter addresses only the
discoverability of the contact information of policy owners and
beneficiaries; it does not address the procedures for protecting
individuals' privacy with respect to such contact information or
the procedures for production and use of that information. The
parties are ordered to confer expeditiously regarding the
procedures governing the production and use of such contact
information. By Nov. 11, 2022, the parties will file a supplemental
discovery submission advising the Court of their respect positions
on these matters, or in the alternative, the parties may file a
stipulation for the Court's review and approval.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3a5px9a9 from Leagle.com.


TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Info Production Dispute in Phan Suit Settled
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DUNG PHAN, Plaintiff v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03665-BLF (VKD) (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
enters an order resolving the dispute regarding the Plaintiff's
request for production of the contact information of the potential
class members.

The Court held a hearing on this dispute on Oct. 20, 2022.

On behalf of herself and a putative class, Ms. Phan alleges that
Transamerica systematically failed to comply with the notice and
grace period provisions of California Insurance Code sections
10113.71 and 10113.72 on or after Jan. 1, 2013.

The parties represented at the hearing that they have agreed that
Transamerica will produce specific information concerning the
relevant insurance policies responsive to the Plaintiff's
Interrogatories Nos. 17, 19, and 20 and Request for Production No.
34. That production will include information concerning responsive
policies that lapsed or terminated due to nonpayment of premium.
The parties disagree about whether Transamerica should be required
to provide contact information for the owners of those responsive
policies and for the beneficiaries of those responsive policies
where the insured has died.

Ms. Phan argues that she requires contact information so that she
can develop evidence that the proposed class meets the requirements
of Rule 23 and to address Transamerica's anticipated arguments in
opposition to class certification that assessing the reasons for
lapse or termination of the policies at issue requires an
individualized determination.

Transamerica responds that Ms. Phan should not be permitted to
obtain contact information because she cannot make a prima facie
showing that the requirements of Rule 23 are met or that discovery
is likely to substantiate her class allegations. It argues that Ms.
Phan's theory of class certification -- i.e. its alleged failure to
comply with insurance code provisions -- does not depend on
information Ms. Phan might obtain from individual class members.
Rather, Transamerica expects that she wishes to obtain contact
information for policy owners and beneficiaries so that she can
recruit replacement or additional class members.

Judge DeMarchi holds that the plausible allegations of the
complaint are sufficient to warrant pre-certification discovery of
class member contact information, so long as that discovery is not
unduly burdensome. With respect to the burden of producing contact
information, she only requires production of contact information
for owners of responsive policies at this time, and defers deciding
whether to require production of contact information for
beneficiaries of responsive policies that have lapsed or terminated
until Transamerica identifies the number of policies.

Ms. Phan may obtain discovery of contact information for those
putative class members who are the owners of relevant insurance
policies responsive to the Plaintiff's Interrogatories Nos. 17, 19,
and 20 and Request for Production No. 34. Such production will be
made as soon as practicable, subject to resolution of any dispute
regarding the procedures governing the production and use of such
contact information.

By Nov. 4, 2022, the parties will file a supplemental discovery
dispute submission advising the Court of the (1) the number of
responsive policies where the insured has died, and (2) an estimate
of the time and effort required for Transamerica to produce contact
information for the beneficiaries of those policies.

The parties' discovery dispute letter addresses only the
discoverability of the contact information of policy owners and
beneficiaries; it does not address the procedures for protecting
individuals' privacy with respect to such contact information or
the procedures for production and use of that information. The
parties are ordered to confer expeditiously regarding the
procedures governing the production and use of such contact
information. By Nov. 11, 2022, they will file a supplemental
discovery submission advising the Court of their respect positions
on these matters, or in the alternative, they may file a
stipulation for the Court's review and approval.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/zydr8ua8 from Leagle.com.


TULSA COUNTY, OK: Feltz Suit Seeks to Certify Detainee Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD FELTZ and ASHTON
DENNIS, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, v. VIC REGALADO, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00298-SPF-JFJ
(N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge entered an order:

   -- certifying the proposed class pursuant to Rule 23 of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

      "All people who are or will be detained prior to their
      initial arraignment in the Tulsa County Jail because they
      are unable to pay a secured financial condition of
      release;" and

   -- appointing their attorneys as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs, pretrial detainees in the Tulsa County Jail at the
time of filing, have filed this class action challenging the
Defendants' unconstitutional pretrial detention system, under which
putative class members are jailed because they cannot afford
secured money bail amounts that are assigned without consideration
of ability to pay, and without individualized determinations that
their incarceration serves a compelling governmental interest.

Tulsa County Jail is a Medium security level County Jail located in
the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TM9rlP at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Hayley Horowitz, Esq.
          Phoebe Kasdin, Esq.
          STILL SHE RISES, INC.
          608 E. 46th Street North
          Tulsa, OK 74126
          E-mail: hayleyh@stillsherises.org
                  phoebek@stillsherises.org
                  Telephone: (918) 392-0867

               - and -

          Ryan Downer, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 800
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202) 844-4975
          E-mail: ryan@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Allison Holt Ryan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 13th Street NW
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          E-mail: allison.holt-ryan@hoganlovells.com

WALT DISNEY: E.K. Sues Over Restrictive Park Reservation System
---------------------------------------------------------------
E.K. and M.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-01919-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla., Oct. 18,
2022) alleges that the Defendant breached its passholders' contract
under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by
restricting access to the theme parks through its Park Pass
System.

According to the complaint, to initially control the Florida parks'
capacity after the COVID-19 pandemic, Disney instituted a new
reservation system prior to reopening - the "Park Pass System."
Under the system, guests are required to have a park reservation in
addition to a valid admission ticket to gain entry to a Disney
theme park. It was believed by the Plaintiffs and other members of
the class that this reservation system would only be temporary and
would end once the threat of the pandemic lessened because they had
not been subjected to this system pre-pandemic. By restricting
access to the park, Disney effectively unilaterally modified all
Platinum Pass holders' and Platinum Plus pass holders' contracts.
These pass holders were forced to reluctantly agree to the terms of
this new agreement, having no meaningful alternative, says the
suit.

Disney has abused a global pandemic to take advantage of its
Platinum pass holders and Platinum Plus pass holders even after the
threat of the pandemic has subsided, the suit asserts. Disney has
altered the Platinum Pass and Platinum Plus Pass terms so
dramatically that they do not even resemble the original agreement
bargained for by Plaintiffs. By implementation of the Park Pass
System, Disney has effectively subjected Platinum Plus Passes and
Platinum Passes to Blockout Dates, because the pass holders are
subject to days and times in which their passes cannot be used, the
suit added.

Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. is an amusement and theme
parks company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary S. Menzer, Esq.
          Michael S. Hill, Esq.
          MENZER & HILL P.A.
          7280 W. Palmetto Pk. Rd. Ste. 301-N
          Boca Raton, FL 33433
          Telephone: (561) 327-7207
          Facsimile: (561) 880-8449
          E-mail: gmenzer@menzerhill.com
                  mhill@menzerhill.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

YES NAKED: Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as APOLONIO ALVARADO, EDWIN
ZAMBRANO, JESUS RAMIREZ, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. section 216(b), v. YES NAKED TACO PROM, LLC, d/b/a Naked
Taco, YES HOSPITALITY, LLC, YES DREAM, LLC, RALPH PAGANO,
individually, and JAY N. SHIRODKAR, individually, Case No.
0:22-cv-61463-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. granting their motion for conditional certification of the
      Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action;

   2. requiring the Defendants to identify all individuals
      falling within the Proposed Class by providing their last
      known address, telephone number, and e-mail within 10 days
      of an Order granting certification;

   3. approving the sending of notice of the collective action
      and a consent to join form (in English and Spanish) by e-
      mail and U.S. Mail to each Putative Class Member;

   4. requiring the Defendants to post notice of the collective
      action and a consent to join form (in English and Spanish)
      in a conspicuous place at its headquarters; and

   5. appointing Perera Aleman, P.A. as counsel for the Putative
      Class.

The Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this matter on August 6,
2022, seeking unpaid overtime wages under FLSA.

The Defendants jointly operate and collectively market a chain of
restaurants under the trade name "Naked Taco." The Defendants
operate Naked Taco restaurants in Miami Beach, Coconut Creek, and
Boca Raton.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 17,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TGCQOU
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          PERERA ALEMÁN, P.A.
          12505 Orange Drive, Suite 908
          Davie, FL 33330
          Telephone: (786) 485-5232
          E-mail: freddy@pba-law.com
          brody@pba-law.com

ZAZZLE INC: Illegally Records Users' Website Visits, Says Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANY DELSIGNORE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZAZZLE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01444-RJC (W.D. Pa., Oct. 13, 2022) is a class action under
the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control
Act arising from Defendant's unlawful interception of Plaintiff's
and Class members' electronic communications through the use of
"session replay" spyware that allowed Defendant to watch and record
users' visits to its website.

According to the complaint, the Defendant utilized "session replay"
spyware to intercept Plaintiff's and the Class members' electronic
computer-to-computer data communications with Defendant's website,
including how they interacted with the website, their mouse
movements and clicks, keystrokes, search terms, information
inputted into the website, and pages and content viewed while
visiting the website. The Defendant intercepted, stored, and
recorded electronic communications regarding the webpages visited
by Plaintiff and the Class members, as well as everything Plaintiff
and the Class members did on those pages, e.g., what they searched
for, what they looked at, the information they inputted, and what
they clicked on, says the suit.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks damages authorized by the
WESCA on behalf of herself and the Class members and any other
available legal or equitable remedies to which they are entitled,
the suit asserts.

Zazzle, Inc. is an American online marketplace that allows
designers and customers to create their own products with
independent manufacturers, as well as use images from participating
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Ari@marcuszelman.com


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***