/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221103.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, November 3, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 214

                            Headlines

A&J WEALTH STRATEGIES: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
A-SHA FOODS USA: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Steele Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
ABUELO'S INT'L: Bid to Approve Settlement in Tolliver Suit Denied
ACV AUCTIONS: Militiev Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

ADVOCATE AURORA: John Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
ALCOA USA: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Simpkins Suit to 7th Cir.
ANCESTRY.COM DNA: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Coatney Suit
ANGIE'S LIST: Court Denies Pro Water's Bid for Class Certification
ARGO GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due December 19

ARS INVESTMENT: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AUDIBLE INC: B.C. Court Tosses Audiobook Conspiracy Class Action
BACKSTREETS GRILL: Class of Employees Certified in Wolff FLSA Suit
BANK OF NEW YORK: Walden Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
BARILLA AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Sinatro Consumer Suit

BGC HOUSING: Perth Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Pipes
BIOGEN INC: Shash Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir.
BLUEMERCURY INC: Suazo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
BOSAL INDUSTRIES: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $3.152-Mil.
BOSTON POST FOOD: Pichardo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

BOTANY BAY: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BUG'S EAR LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BUNCHES OF BOWS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BUTTERBALL LLC: Figueroa Appeals Court Ruling Narrowing Claims
CALIFORNIA DOC: Thomas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses McKenna v. Cisneros Prisoner Suit
CAPITAL ONE BANK: Sullivan Sues Over Unlawful Adverse Action
CARRET ASSET MANAGEMENT: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CASTLE NAVIGATION: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHW GROUP INC: Zononi Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida

CITIZENS BANK: Conti Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir.
CITY WIDE PROPERTY: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CLOUDERA INC: Securities Class Suit Dismissed W/o Leave to Amend
COLUMBUS, OH: CMHA Wants Judge to Toss Tenants' Class Action
CONDUENT BUSINESS: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Carnley EFTA Suit

CUMBERLAND COUNTY JAIL: Collagan Files Suit in D. Maine
CURALEAF INC: Kelley Sues Over Fair Workweek Law Violations
DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE: Montano Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
DRINK LMNT INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
E.I. DUPONT: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Baker Suit to 2nd Cir.

ENVISION FEDERAL: Appeal Filed in Hall Class Suit
FLAGSTAR BANK: Gardner Files Suit in S.D. Texas
FMR LLC: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FRAMEBRIDGE INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GAMESTOP INC: Pena Sues Over Unauthorized Interception of Data

GERBER PRODUCTS: Bid to Dismiss Baby Food Heavy Metals Suit Granted
GERBER PRODUCTS: Judge Dismisses Baby Food Class Action
GOODYEAR TIRE: Alves Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
GOT ALL YOUR MARBLES: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GREEN DOT: Agrees to Settle Unsolicited Text Ads Suit for $3.3-M

GREEN SHEEP INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HAZELNUT PRODUCTIONS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HELEN OF TROY: Rowland Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HOSPITALITY KANSAS: Steck Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage

HUDSON GROUP: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Fehrenbach Files Suit in C.D. California
INFORMED DATA SYSTEMS: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INJURED WORKERS: Massachusetts Court Allows Bid to Toss Webb Suit
JELLUM LAW: Kowouto Suit Removed to D. Minnesota

JGR SERVICES: Lopez Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Defective Pelvic Mesh Devices
LAKE CITY: Bid to Certify Class in McAllister FDCPA Suit Granted
LEKKER! INC: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Brown Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.

LINCARE INC: B.B. Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
LIQUID-IV INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LM GENERAL: Baskerville Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
LOS ANGELES, CA: Pimentel Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
LOVEDBABY LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LOVISA AMERICA: Sued Over Wiretapping of Private Conversations
MADDEN CORPORATION: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAISIE JANES: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAJOR LEAGUE: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Law Violations
MANHATTAN LUXURY: Appeals Court Ruling in Watson Suit to 2nd Cir.

MARYLAND: District Court Refuses to Allow Ali to Amend Complaint
MDL 2879: Special Master Wants Discovery to Proceed in Breach Suit
MEADOWBROOK FINANCIAL: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
META PLATFORMS: Logan Class Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
MOONLIGHT SLUMBER: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NEW JERSEY: Carmona Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit
NEW YORK, NY: Ellis Sues Over Unlawful Discriminations
NEW YORK, NY: Tal Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Transfer of Pauli Suit to M.D. Pennsylvania Denied
PACIFIC POWER: Trial Date in Wildfire Class Action Set April 24

POLITBURO OF THE CHINESE: Zhao Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Cir.
PRECISION IMAGING: Sharfman May Seek Subscribers' Info, Court Says
RED APPLE: Denial of Bid for Fees & Expenses in Flynn Suit Upheld
RENEWABLE ENERGY: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
SALLIE MAE: Homaidan's Bid for Prelim. Injunction Granted in Part

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Litvinova Appeals Judgment in FLSA Suit
SYNGENTA AG: Denial of Kellogg Farmers' Intervention Bid Affirmed
TA OPERATING: Appeals Arbitration Bid Order in Holley-Gallegly Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Perez's Implied Warranty Claim Tossed With Prejudice
U.S. BANCORP: Minnesota Court Refuses to Strike Adams' Class Claims

YANFENG US: Class Settlement in Dover Suit Gets Prelim. Approval

                            *********

A&J WEALTH STRATEGIES: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A&J Wealth Strategies
LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. A&J Wealth Strategies LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-08976-AT (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2022).

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

A&J Wealth Strategies LLC, doing business as AJ Wealth --
https://ajwealthllc.com/ -- is a trusted advisor that provides
quality financial counseling to individuals and families that are
seeking asset security, objective advice and quality service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


A-SHA FOODS USA: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A-Sha Foods USA Co.
Inc. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. A-Sha Foods USA Co.
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09021 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2022).

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

A-Sha Foods USA Co. Inc. -- https://ashadrynoodle.com/ -- is a
noodle shop presenting authentic Taiwanese noodles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Steele Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Katie Steele, individually and as the legal
guardian of a minor child and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. doing business as: Abbott
Nutrition, Case No. 2:22-cv-00571 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 24,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-04162 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Abbott Laboratories -- https://www.abbott.com/ -- is an American
multinational medical devices and health care company with
headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
          Eric Poulin, Esq.
          Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM (CHA)
          32 Ann Street, Unit B
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (843) 614-8888
          Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
                 eric@akimlawfirm.com
                 roy@akimlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE, LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Phone: (843) 216-9142

The Defendant is represented by:

          Molly Hood Craig, Esq.
          Virginia Rogers Floyd, Esq.
          HOOD LAW FIRM LLC
          172 Meeting Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Phone: (843) 577-4435
          Fax: (843) 722-1630
          Email: molly.craig@hoodlaw.com
                 virginia.floyd@hoodlaw.com


ABUELO'S INT'L: Bid to Approve Settlement in Tolliver Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael H. Watson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied without prejudice, the
parties' motion for approval of settlement in the lawsuit captioned
Britan Tolliver, et al., Plaintiff v. Abuelo's International LP, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-3790 (S.D. Ohio).

The Defendants and Plaintiff Anna Stammen jointly move for approval
of their settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case,
which is in the form of an offer of judgment and an acceptance of
the offer.

The Settlement applies to only Stammen, not to any other Plaintiff
or a collective. The motion does not provide any specifics about
the net settlement amount, whether that net settlement includes
attorney's fees, or what percentage of Stammen's alleged damages
are covered by the settlement.

Nonetheless, the Defendant's offer is attached to Stammen's notice
of acceptance of judgment. That offer represents that Stammen will
receive $7,500 from the Defendants, and that this figure does not
include attorney's fees. Still, the offer does not explain what
percentage of Stammen's alleged damages are covered by the $7,500.

To approve a settlement agreement, Judge Watson notes that a court
must conclude that it is a "fair, reasonable, and adequate"
resolution of a bona fide legal dispute, citing Int'l Union, United
Auto, Aerospace, and Agr. Implement Workers of Am. v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 497 F.3d 615, 631 (6th Cir. 2007) (discussing a class action
settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23).

Without knowing how much of Stammen's alleged damages the offer
covers, the Court cannot evaluate the fairness and reasonableness
of the Parties' settlement, which the Court must do to approve an
FLSA settlement. Judge Watson explains that for example, recovery
of $7,500 may be reasonable for a plaintiff who could, at most,
recover $8,000 at trial but may be unreasonable if that plaintiff
could expect to recover $50,000.

Of course, there are times when a low rate of recovery may be fair
and reasonable, but the parties should still justify their
settlement. The parties have not done so here, Judge Watson points
out.

In sum, the Parties have not provided the Court with enough
information to assess whether their settlement is fair and
reasonable. Therefore, the Parties' motion for approval of
settlement is denied without prejudice.

The Clerk is directed to terminate ECF No. 85.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Oct. 17,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bfkm43s3 from
Leagle.com.


ACV AUCTIONS: Militiev Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACV Auctions Inc. The
case is styled as Ligia Militiev, all others similarly situated and
the general public v. ACV Auctions Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00328741-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Oct. 21, 2022).

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

ACV Auctions Inc. -- https://www.acvauctions.com/ -- provides a
digital marketplace for wholesale vehicle transactions and data
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd, Ste. 203
          Encino, CA 91436-4535
          Phone: 818-582-3086
          Fax: 818-582-2561
          Email: david@spivaklaw.com


ADVOCATE AURORA: John Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advocate Aurora
Health Inc. The case is styled as Shyanne John, Angelica Hudy,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Advocate Aurora Health Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01253-NJ (E.D. Wis.,
Oct. 24, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Advocate Aurora Health -- https://www.advocateaurorahealth.org/ --
is a non-profit health care system with dual headquarters located
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Downers Grove, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG
          5335 Wisconsin Ave NW-Ste 440
          Washington, DC 20015
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: dlietz@milberg.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          227 W Monroe St-Ste 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com


ALCOA USA: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Simpkins Suit to 7th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALCOA USA CORP., et al. are taking an appeal from a class
certification ruling in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT W. SIMPKINS and
LYNNETTE J. KAISER; UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER,
MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION AFL-CIO/CLC; and ALUMINUM TRADES COUNCIL OF
WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON AFL-CIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALCOA USA CORP.; RETIREES
GROUP BENEFIT PLAN FOR CERTAIN HOURLY EMPLOYEES OF ALCOA USA CORP.;
MEDICARE EXCHANGE HEALTHCARE REIMBURSEMENT PLAN FOR CERTAIN
MEDICARE ELIGIBLE RETIREES OF ALCOA; and ALCOA MEDICARE PART B
REIMBURSEMENT PLAN FOR CERTAIN MEDICARE ELIGIBLE RETIREES OF ALCOA
USA, Defendants,, Case No. 3:20-cv-00278-RLY-MPB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge Defendant Alcoa USA
Corp.'s decision to breach its longstanding labor agreements by
terminating the retiree healthcare benefits of more than 3,000
retired hourly workers, spouses, disabled adult children, and
surviving spouses on January 1, 2021.

Despite the collectively bargained contract provisions, as well as
other promises to provide continuing coverage to Class members,
Alcoa has announced that, effective January 1, 2021, it will
unilaterally terminate the retiree healthcare coverage it has
provided to Medicare-eligible Class members for decades. The
Plaintiffs allege violations of Section 301 of the Labor Management
Relations Act and Sections 502(a)(1)(B) and 502(a)(3) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

In September 29, 2022, Judge Richard Young entered its ruling on
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Alcoa USA Corp., et al. v.
Lynette Kaiser, et al., Case No. 22-8018, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on October 13,
2022. [BN]

Defendants-Petitioners ALCOA USA CORP., et al., are represented
by:

            David R. Fine, Esq.
            K&L GATES LLP
            17 N. Second Street
            Market Square Plaza
            Harrisburg, PA 17101
            Telephone: (717) 231-4500

Plaintiffs-Respondents LYNNETTE J. KAISER, et al., individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Barry A. Macey, Esq.
            MACEY SWANSON LLP
            429 N. Pennsylvania Street
            Indianapolis, IN 46204
            Telephone: (317) 637-2345

ANCESTRY.COM DNA: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Coatney Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANCESTRY.COM DNA, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order
denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled
Alex Coatney, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ancestry.com DNA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01368-DWD, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs Alex Coatney, and H.S., B.H., and N.S., by and through
their guardians, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, bring this putative class action against
Ancestry, alleging violations of the Illinois Genetic Information
Privacy Act, 410 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 513/1, et seq. ("GIPA").
They contend that Ancestry violated their privacy rights by
disclosing confidential genetic information to unauthorized third
parties without their written consent.

Ancestry updated its Terms and Conditions no less than 10 times
from the time of Guardian Pallone's registration in 2006 until the
filing of the Plaintiffs' initial complaint. Each of those versions
of the Terms and Conditions contained a provision allowing Ancestry
to unilaterally modify the Terms and Conditions at any point and
provide notice to users via email or a banner on their website.
Continued use of Ancestry's product or services after being
notified of a change in the Terms would constitute acceptance of
the updated Terms. The parties do not argue that any of the
Guardians disaffirmed Ancestry's Terms or have deleted their
accounts. Thus, it is undisputed that the most recent Terms and
Conditions, the 2019 Terms, apply to the relationship between
Ancestry and the Guardians.

On February 11, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). The FAA
mandates that courts enforce valid, written arbitration agreements.
This mandate reflects a federal policy that favors arbitration and
"places arbitration agreements on equal footing with all other
contracts." Arbitration should be compelled under the FAA when
"three elements are present: (1) an enforceable written agreement
to arbitrate, (2) a dispute within the scope of the arbitration
agreement, and (3) a refusal to arbitrate."

The Defendant presents two general theories which purportedly bind
the Plaintiffs to the arbitration agreements in its Terms and
Conditions. First, it argues that the Plaintiffs assented to the
Terms and Conditions by either (a) agreeing to use its services to
submit their DNA tests through their Guardians' accounts, or (b)
because the Guardians executed the relevant consent forms on the
Plaintiffs' behalf. Alternatively, the Defendant maintains that
equitable principles bind the Plaintiffs to the Terms and
Conditions because they received the benefit of using its
services.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs are bound to the
arbitration provisions in its Terms and Conditions because they
manifested an affirmative intent to be bound to the Terms either
(a) by consenting to use its services to submit their DNA tests or
(b) because they authorized their Guardians to execute the relevant
consent forms on their behalf. In response, the Plaintiffs
summarily refute that they agreed to use the Defendant's services
at all. Instead, they imply that their Guardians acted unilaterally
in submitting their DNA to the Defendant.

On September 30, 2022, Judge David W. Dugan denied the Defendant's
motion. Judge Dugan finds that nothing in the plain language of the
Terms and Conditions or the consent forms indicate that the
Guardians were agreeing to the Terms or executing the consent forms
on behalf of the Plaintiffs, whether in addition to their Guardians
or independent of their Guardians. Nor did the Plaintiffs
physically sign the user agreements or register for an account
separate from their Guardians. Finally, nothing in the record
indicates that the Plaintiffs activated their own DNA tests or
otherwise engaged independently with the Defendant's services so as
to conclude that they manifested an independent intent to be bound
by its Terms and Conditions when the Guardians completed the
consent forms. Thus, Judge Dugan declined to find that the
Guardians executed the Terms and Conditions or consent forms on
behalf of the Plaintiffs.

The appellate case is captioned as Alex Coatney, et al. v.
Ancestry.com DNA, LLC, Case No. 22-2017, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on October 13, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Ancestry.com DNA, LLC docketing statement was due
on October 19, 2022;

   -- Transcript information sheet was due October 27, 2022; and

   -- Appellant Ancestry.com DNA, LLC brief is due on or before
November 22, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ALEX COATNEY, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            David Gerbie, Esq.
            MCGUIRE LAW P.C.
            55 W. Wacker Drive
            Chicago, IL 60601
            Telephone: (312) 893-7002

Defendant-Appellant ANCESTRY.COM DNA, LLC is represented by:

            Shon Morgan, Esq.
            QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
            865 S. Figueroa Street
            Los Angeles, CA 90017
            Telephone: (213) 443-3000

ANGIE'S LIST: Court Denies Pro Water's Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class in the lawsuit captioned PRO WATER SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff v. ANGIE'S LIST, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-08704-ODW (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendants
Angie's List, Inc., and Angi Homeservices Inc. on behalf of itself
and others, who advertised their businesses on Angie's List's
website.

The Defendants removed this case from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the Central
District of California on the basis of Class Action Fairness Act
jurisdiction.

Pro Water is in the business of providing water treatment services,
and this case arises from its efforts to market its services by
advertising on Angie's List. Angie's List operates a website that
homeowners use to locate, evaluate, contact, hire, and rate
businesses for various contracting jobs. From 2011 to 2019, Pro
Water was a registered business, or service provider, with Angie's
List. During this time period, Pro Water also paid nonparty
HomeAdvisor, Inc., to generate leads--that is, to send it the
contact information of homeowners, who were seeking water treatment
services in exchange for a per-lead fee.

Until recently, Angie's List and HomeAdvisor were two separate
companies. After a series of corporate transactions in 2017,
Angie's List and HomeAdvisor both became subsidiaries of a newly
created corporate entity, Angi. Even after this merger, Angie's
List and HomeAdvisor continue to function as separate platforms
providing distinct services to homeowners and service providers.

In 2018, after the merger of Angie's List and HomeAdvisor, Angie's
List introduced a new feature to its website: the SR Path. The SR
(or "Service Request") Path was, and still is, an alternate way for
homeowners to find suitable service providers for their projects.
The Defendants explain that Angie's List introduced SR Path because
previously, Angie's List's website required homeowners to sign up
for an account to access the Directory and contact service
providers.

The SR Path is available on the Angie's List homepage for any
visitor to use, without the need to create an account or pay a fee.
Angie's List does not charge service providers any separate fee for
appearing in the search results of the SR Path. Over time the SR
Path has become the primary means by which Angie's List service
providers receive contacts, increasing from about 33% of all
contacts to around 65% in 2020.

Correspondingly, Angie's List has made certain changes to its
website to emphasize the SR Path and de-emphasize the Directory. In
contrast to the Defendants' assertions that the SR Path increased
overall contacts to service providers, one of Pro Water's
contentions in this suit is that the SR Path diverted homeowners
away from the Directory and, thus, interfered with the
effectiveness of its advertising spend with Angie's List.

During the times relevant to this lawsuit, Pro Water was a "dual
advertiser"--that is, it paid Angie's List periodic fees to
advertise there, and it also paid HomeAdvisor lead generation fees
on a per-lead basis. Because of its role as a dual advertiser, Pro
Water learned that, after the merger, Angie's List and HomeAdvisor
began to coordinate their activities such that the search results
on Angie's List's SR Path did not consist entirely of Angie's List
service providers (that is, service providers paying Angie's List
periodic advertising fees).

Dual-advertiser service providers, such as Pro Water, who
contracted with both Angie's List and HomeAdvisor, were subject to
a unique wrinkle in this process that the parties refer to as
double-dipping or double-charging. From the service provider's
perspective, the service provider was being charged twice--once to
advertise on Angie's List to appear in that homeowner's SR Path
search results, and then again by HomeAdvisor for the lead
generated by the provider's appearance in that same homeowner's SR
Path search results. The Defendants assert that a "robust" refund
process was available for dual advertisers, who had been double
charged in this way.

Pro Water disagrees; its rebuttal is based on the experience of a
former Angie's List employee, who declares that many service
providers contacted her because of problems with the refund
process. When the former employee tried to raise the issue,
management threatened her with write-ups and termination.

Based on these facts, Pro Water asserts that Angie's List breached
contracts and violated statutes by engaging in five principal
categories of conduct: sharing Pro Water's information with
HomeAdvisor; introducing SR Path onto the Angie's List website;
including HomeAdvisor service providers in the SR Path search
results; leading service providers to believe that the only way
they could appear in the SR Path search results was by advertising
through Angie's List; and double-charging dual advertisers.

Pro Water's Complaint asserted four claims variously aimed at
obtaining relief for these alleged wrongs. After three rounds of
motions to dismiss and amended pleadings, what remains is a single
claim for "unfair" business acts or practices under the California
unfair competition law ("UCL"), Business and Professions Code
section 17200.

The allegations pertaining to the first category of
conduct--Angie's List's sharing Pro Water's information with
HomeAdvisor--related principally to contract claims which are now
dismissed. The remaining basis for the UCL claim is Angie's List's
introducing and maintaining the SR Path on its website,
corresponding to the remaining four categories.

On April 15, 2022, the Plaintiff moved for class certification,
seeking certification of the "California Class," defined as:

     all California-based service providers who paid to advertise
     on Angie's List's website during the limitations period, and
     the "California HomeAdvisor Subclass," defined as any member
     of the California Class who is also a dual advertiser with
     HomeAdvisor.

As part of its Reply, Pro Water raises objections to evidence
supporting the Defendants' opposition. The Court took the matter
under submission one week after Pro Water filed its Reply and
objections, which was also one week before the hearing on the
Motion was scheduled to take place. Then, on May 23, 2022, two
weeks after the Reply was filed and on the day the hearing would
have taken place, the Defendants filed a response to Pro Water's
evidentiary objections, along with objections of its own to
evidence supporting Pro Water's reply.

Judge Wright holds that the Defendants' materials are untimely. The
Court assumes solely for the purpose of argument that it is
permissible to submit materials in rebuttal to a reply; even so, in
the absence of a Court order or request for permission, filing such
materials two weeks after the reply itself was due, and one week
after the Court has already taken the matter under submission, is
considered untimely.

Judge Wright also holds that Pro Water's objections are more in the
character of procedural requests to strike evidence than
evidentiary objections. Judge Wright opines that Pro Water fails to
show prejudice arising from the Defendants' delay, and accordingly,
Pro Water's objections are overruled. Pro Water further objects to
the attachments to the Traughber Declaration, on the grounds that
the Defendants produced them untimely. Pro Water likewise fails to
show prejudice and this objection is overruled.

Based on observations, Judge Wright says it is clear that the
restitution model is based solely on the theory that the Defendants
engaged in unfair business practices by including HomeAdvisor
service providers in the SR Path search results--theory number (2),
and only theory number (2), as designated.

Judge Wright holds that the Motion fails on the commonality
requirement because (1) variations among Class members change the
outcome of the "unfair" analysis; (2) the Subclass is uniquely
positioned and shares no common questions with the Class; and (3)
Pro Water's claim is unmeritorious as a matter of law.

Ultimately, though, this is a Rule 23 analysis, not a merits
analysis, so the Court need not determine whether Pro Water or any
particular Subclass member is in fact barred from recovery on the
basis of windfall (or perhaps waiver, or any other theory or
approach). The point here is that this unique feature of the
Subclass significantly changes a part of the "unfairness" analysis.
That change must be considered along with all the other facts and
circumstances of a service provider's relationship to Angie's List,
and accordingly, whether Angie's List's conduct was "unfair" is not
a question that is likely to "generate common answers apt to drive
the resolution of the litigation."

The third and final observation defeating commonality is that the
claim of Pro Water itself, as delineated by the restitution model
it presents and the corresponding theory of the case, is
unmeritorious as a matter of law, Judge Wright holds.

Under these facts, Pro Water's claim for unfair business practices
lacks merit as a matter of law, Judge Wright says. Judge Wright
also finds that individual questions predominate over common
questions with respect to both liability and damages, making class
certification inappropriate under Rule 23(b)(3).

For these reasons, Judge Wright holds that Pro Water's restitution
model fails. When a restitution or damages model fails and the
moving party presents no alternative method for calculating damages
on a classwide basis, individual issues predominate the damages
inquiry, and class certification is properly denied.

Having determined that certification of the Class is not
appropriate, the Court considers whether certifying the HomeAdvisor
Subclass may be appropriate. Although Pro Water defines the
HomeAdvisor Subclass, its Motion lacks a clear indication of how
the harm the Subclass suffered is different from the harm the Class
suffered and, more generally, does not address any class
certification questions or points of analysis that are unique to
the Subclass.

Moreover, Pro Water provides no restitution model based on the harm
specific to the Subclass. On this basis, the Court sees no reason
to define a Subclass separate from the Class, and certification of
the Subclass is further denied on this basis.

For these reasons, the Court denies Pro Water's Motion to Certify
Class with prejudice. The Court strikes the Defendants' Objections
and Response to Objections.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 17, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3b2xzpn8 from Leagle.com.


ARGO GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due December 19
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Oct. 24 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Argo Group International
Holdings, Ltd. ("Argo" or the "Company") (NYSE: ARGO) common stock
between February 13, 2018 and August 9, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Argo investors have until December 19, 2022 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Announces the Filing of a
Securities Class Action on Behalf of Argo Group International
Holdings, Ltd. (ARGO) Investors

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

On February 8, 2022, Argo issued a press release disclosing that
its results for the fourth quarter of 2021 would be "negatively
affected by adverse prior year reserve development and
non-operating charges." Specifically, Argo expects "net adverse
prior year reserve development to be in the range of $130 million
to $140 million." The Company explained that the largest reserve
increases were due to construction defect claims within Argo's U.S.
Operations and reserve increases in the run-off segment.

On this news, Argo's stock fell $7.11, or 13.7%, to close at $44.76
per share on February 9, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on August 8, 2022, Argo announced that it had entered into a
loss portfolio transfer agreement with a subsidiary of Enstar Group
Limited ("Enstar") pursuant to which Argo would retain a loss
corridor of $75 million up to $821 million. An analyst noted that
the Company faced "additional uncertainties," as this loss corridor
retention "could act as overhang on the outlook for the next 12-24
months."

On this news, Argo's stock fell $9.12, or 28.3%, to close at $23.10
per share on August 10, 2022, thereby injuring investors further.

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
U.S. 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.

If you purchased Argo common stock during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than December 19, 2022 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Argo common stock, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]

ARS INVESTMENT: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS Investment
Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. ARS Investment
Partners, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09112-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24,
2022).

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

ARS Investment Partners -- https://arsinvestmentpartners.com/ -- is
a financial planner in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUDIBLE INC: B.C. Court Tosses Audiobook Conspiracy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Royal, Esq., and Alexandra Urbanski, Esq., of Stikeman
Elliott LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in Williams v.
Audible, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "Court")
considered three applications in the context of a proposed
conspiracy class action focused on exclusivity provisions in an
agreement between Audible Inc. and Apple Inc. relating to the
distribution and sale of digital audiobooks in Canada. Ultimately,
the Court dismissed the plaintiff's certification application as
well as the defendants' application for summary judgment and
granted Audible's application to extend a stay of proceedings to
two groups of putative class members.

BACKGROUND
In 2003, Audible and Apple entered into an agreement that allowed
Apple to sell Audible audiobooks on iTunes. The agreement contained
exclusivity provisions that imposed restrictions on Apple to source
its audiobooks exclusively from Audible, and restrictions on
Audible to refrain, subject to limited exceptions, from integrating
its content with any other internet-based store or distribution
service other than Apple. In 2006, the parties replaced the 2003
agreement with a Global Master Agreement (the "2006 Agreement")
that maintained the general exclusivity provisions of the 2003
agreement but allowed Audible to engage in direct sales of
audiobooks from its own website.

In 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of civil claim against Apple,
Audible and Amazon, which had acquired Audible in 2008 and
previously entered into a Co-Branding Agreement with Audible
pursuant to which Amazon advertised Audible content on its website.
Among other things, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants
violated s. 45 of the Competition Act (which creates a per se
criminal offence for competitors who enter into agreements or
arrangements to fix prices, allocate markets, or restrict output)
and certain provisions of the Business Practices and Consumer
Protection Act ("Consumer Act").

In 2019, the plaintiff sought to certify the action as a class
proceeding on behalf of all persons in Canada who purchased digital
audiobooks from the Amazon or Audible websites or Apple iTunes
Store between 2003 and the date of certification. Prior to the
certification hearing, in January 2020, the plaintiff amended the
claim to address the fact that Amazon was not a party to the 2006
Agreement. The amendments included a new pleading of two separate
agreements that in combination amounted to a conspiracy by Apple,
Audible and Amazon: (i) the agreement between Apple and Audible;
and (ii) the agreement between Audible and Amazon.

The same representative plaintiff commenced a separate class
proceeding against Amazon relating to an agreement between Amazon
and third-party sellers not to compete for the sales of new books,
music, movies and DVDs on the Amazon Canada website. In March 2020,
the Court granted Amazon's application for a stay of proceedings
under the Arbitration Act, other than in relation to the
plaintiff's claims under the Consumer Act (the "Amazon Stay
Decision"). The exception for claims under the Consumer Act was
based on Seidel v. TELUS Communications, where the Supreme Court of
Canada held that, notwithstanding the existence of a mandatory
arbitration clause, claims under section 172 of the Consumer Act
may be pursued in Court.

There is a similar arbitration clause in Audible's contract with
the plaintiff, which Audible sought to enforce; however, in light
of Seidel, and pending the appeal proceedings of the Amazon Stay
Decision , the plaintiff agreed to a consent stay of all
non-Consumer Act claims, subject to two exceptions: (i) claims for
relief on behalf of Alberta residents under the Alberta Consumer
Protection Act; and (ii) all claims concerning purchases between
July 21, 2010 and September 5, 2012, when Audible's contracts
lacked an arbitration clause.

In December 2021, the plaintiff amended the pleadings again to drop
the case against Amazon, and in early February 2022 the Court heard
the following three applications, which are the subject of this
decision:

an application by Audible to extend the consent stay;
applications for summary judgment brought by Audible and Apple,
seeking to dismiss the Consumer Act claims against Audible and all
claims against Apple (there is no arbitration clause in Apple's
contracts with its customers and Apple is not a party to the
consent stay), or alternatively, seeking to dismiss all claims
prior to two years before the action was filed on the basis of a
limitation defence; and
an application by the plaintiff to certify the action as a class
proceeding.

THE DECISION
The Court granted Audible's application to extend the consent stay
to the Non-Consumer Act claims of Alberta residents and Canadians
who purchased audiobooks between July 21, 2010 and September 5,
2012. The Court dismissed the summary judgment applications of
Apple and Audible as well as the plaintiff's certification
application.

Audible's stay application
In opposing Audible's extension of the consent stay, the plaintiff
advanced the same argument that the Court rejected in the Amazon
Stay Decision; that is, that the plaintiff can maintain claims on
behalf of putative class members even if he himself cannot pursue
the claims. However, the plaintiff argued that this case was
distinguishable from the Amazon Stay Decision because: (i)
Audible's stay application was being heard at the same time as the
certification application; and (ii) the plaintiff had put forward
an additional proposed representative plaintiff who made purchases
at a time when there was no arbitration clause in the Audible
customer contracts.

The Court held that the timing of the certification decision was
not relevant to Audible's substantive right to pursue a stay of
proceedings and that the Amazon Stay Decision was not
distinguishable on this basis. Moreover, the Court concluded that
the plaintiff could not continue non-Consumer Act claims against
Audible on behalf of the new proposed representative plaintiff for
the same reason it could not advance such claims on behalf of any
other putative class member: if the plaintiff's proceeding against
Audible is stayed, there is no proceeding to continue.

Summary judgment applications
Pursuant to Rule 9-6 of the B.C. Supreme Court Civil Rules, summary
judgment may be granted if the court is satisfied, based on the
evidence, that the plaintiff has no chance of success. The onus is
on the defendant to show that there is no genuine issue for trial.
If a determination of the merits of the plaintiff's claim requires
a weighing of the evidence, then judgment cannot be granted under
Rule 9-6.

The defendants asserted that there is no genuine issue for trial on
the basis that the 2006 Agreement was not unambiguously harmful to
competition, and thus, all the plaintiff's causes of action were
bound to fail. Viewing the legislative history and context of s. 45
of the Competition Act, the defendants claimed that s. 45 was
intended to apply to "hard core" or "naked" cartel agreements that
lacked any pro-competitive benefits.

The defendants emphasized that their agreement was not a horizontal
agreement between competitors, but rather, a vertical agreement
between an upstream supplier of audiobooks (Audible) and a
downstream purchaser and reseller (Apple), which the defendants
stated is well recognized to have pro-competitive justifications.
The Court noted that the agreement is what is known as a "dual
distribution" agreement as Audible competes with Apple in addition
to supplying it with audiobooks.

To support their position, the defendants proffered two affidavits
of the former Commissioner of Competition, who provided his opinion
on the approach he anticipates the Competition Bureau would take to
the agreements between the defendants and what Parliament intended
the scope of s. 45 to capture.

Subject to limited exceptions, the Court struck the affidavit
evidence relied on by the defendants, finding it irrelevant and
unnecessary as to how the Bureau would characterize the actual
agreements in issue in this case. The Court held that it did not
require the assistance of an expert to interpret domestic
legislation; rather, the Commissioner's review of the legislative
history and evolution of s. 45 could have been put before the Court
in the form of legal argument or a journal article.

Ultimately, the Court held that the evidence on the record was not
uniform on how to properly characterize the exclusivity provisions
in the 2006 Agreement. The experts disagreed as to whether the
exclusivity provisions are properly characterized as a vertical
agreement, which would unambiguously have a pro-competitive
justification. Consequently, the Court declined to grant summary
judgment on the basis that it was not satisfied beyond a doubt that
the plaintiff's claims were "bound to fail".

Notably, the Court held that the B.C. summary judgment provision is
not suitable to resolve a complex and relatively novel issue of
competition law regarding the application of s. 45 to a "dual
distribution" agreement, and ought to be decided based on a full
evidentiary record.

Based on the evidence on the record, the Court was also not
satisfied beyond doubt that the claims of class members arising
prior to two years before the action was filed were bound to fail
based on a limitation defence. Contrary to the defendants'
assertions, the Court held that this was not an exceptional case in
which it was appropriate to resolve limitation issues at an early
stage.

Certification application
The Court dismissed the plaintiff's application to certify the
action as a class proceeding, finding that the common issues and
preferability criteria were not satisfied.

The Court held that the plaintiff had failed to put forward
sufficient evidence to show harm or loss could be determined on a
class wide basis. The Court noted that the only common issue that
could conceivably be certified on the record was the issue of
whether the defendants' agreements were contrary to s. 45 of the
Competition Act. However, in the absence of any evidence of a
methodology for assessing damages on a class-wide basis, the Court
held that the certification of that issue alone will not advance
the claims of class members.

In the absence of any evidence that there is a methodology for
assessing damages across the class, the Court ultimately held that
a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for the fair
and efficient resolution of a common liability issue in this case.

Key Takeaways
The case serves as a reminder to consider the impact of arbitration
provisions and stays of proceedings on all putative class members.
While courts may draw distinctions between Consumer Act claims and
non-Consumer Act claims given the Supreme Court of Canada's
decision in Seidel, once a proposed representative plaintiff's
non-Consumer Act claims are stayed, there is no proceeding to
advance the non-Consumer Act claims of other possible class
members.

The case highlights how courts in British Columbia may be unlikely
to find summary judgment suitable to resolve relatively novel and
complex issues such as the application of s. 45 to a "dual
distribution" agreement.

The case exemplifies a greater willingness by the Court to exercise
its gatekeeper role and take a somewhat closer look at evidence at
the certification stage.

As the plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal with the British
Columbia Court of Appeal in this case, counsel will want to keep an
eye on any guidance offered by the higher court(s). [GN]

BACKSTREETS GRILL: Class of Employees Certified in Wolff FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIA WOLFF and AARON DEVILLANUEVA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BACKSTREETS GRILL SC, LLC, doing business as Backstreets Grill, and
CASEY PEISSEL, individually, Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:21-02800-MGL (D.S.C.), Judge Mary Geiger Lewis of the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia
Division, grants the Named Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification.

The Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, bring the putative collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 216, against the
Defendants. They allege that the Defendants illegally required
Backstreets' servers to participate in a tipping pool, wherein they
were coerced or harassed into "tipping out" back-of-house (BOH)
employees a portion of their income after each shift. The BOH
employees worked from the kitchen and had no interaction with
patrons.

The Named Plaintiffs filed the action, and later their motion for
conditional collective action certification and to authorize notice
to putative class members. The Defendants responded, and the Named
Plaintiffs replied. The reply included an amended proposed notice,
which clarified that class members need not attend trial unless
called as a witness, but remained otherwise unchanged.

As to whether the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class members
are similarly situated, Judge Lewis finds that altogether, at this
early juncture, the substantial allegations contained in the Named
Plaintiffs' Declarations, as well as the complaint, provide a
sufficient basis for the Court to conditionally certify their FLSA
collective action for actual damages, liquidated damages, and
attorney fees under the FLSA.

For clarity and consistency, however, Judge Lewis makes a small
change to the Named Plaintiffs' proposed class definition. Rather
than calculating the timeframe that a putative class member must
have been employed at Backstreets from the time that class member
joins the suit, she will calculate from the date notice is sent.
This comports with the language in the proposed notice.

Judge Lewis therefore defines the class as: "All individuals who
were employed by Backstreets at any time within the three (3) years
prior to notice being sent in this lawsuit, who were paid a direct,
or hourly, rate less than the minimum wage of Seven and 25/100
dollars ($7.25) per hour and participated in a tip pool created by
Backstreets."

As to whether the proposed notice is misleading, contradictory,
and/or overreaching, Judge Lewis holds that the Named Plaintiffs
have proposed a fair, neutral, appropriate, and clear notice. She
thus authorizes the notice as proposed by the Plaintiffs in their
motion and amended in their reply.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Lewis grants the Named
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification as modified;
defines the class as described; and authorizes the notice as
described.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/324nm9jf from
Leagle.com.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Walden Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stephen Walden, Leslie Walden, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of New York
Mellon Corporation, BNY Mellon, N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-01972-CRE,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on Oct. 21, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-mc-91519-PBS to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Quash.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, commonly known as BNY
Mellon -- http://www.bnymellon.com/-- is an American investment
banking services holding company headquartered in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Alan Casale, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          Global Customer Centre
          20 Stanwix Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 288-5937
          Fax: (412) 288-3063
          Email: dcasale@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Justin J. Kontul, Esq.
          Perry A Napolitano, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 288-3131
          Email: jkontul@reedsmith.com
                 pnapolitano@reedsmith.com


BARILLA AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Sinatro Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
lawsuit entitled MATTHEW SINATRO, et al., Plaintiffs v. BARILLA
AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-03460-DMR (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Matthew Sinatro and Jessica Prost filed this putative
class action against Barilla alleging false, misleading, and
deceptive marketing practices with respect to the labeling of
certain of its Barilla-brand pastas. Barilla moves pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss
the first amended complaint ("FAC").

Barilla is a corporation headquartered in Illinois. It originated
as a bread and pasta shop in Parma, Italy, in the nineteenth
century.

At issue in the FAC is the labeling of certain Barilla-brand pastas
as "ITALY'S #1 BRAND OF PASTA(R)." The Plaintiffs allege that
authentic Italian products, including pastas, hold a certain
prestige and are generally viewed as a higher quality product, and
that the general "Italianness" of a product influences consumers'
overall evaluation of a product. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs
allege, many companies, including Barilla, "have scrambled to
manufacture, market, and sell purportedly authentic 'Italian-made'
pastas, using durum wheat that is not sourced in Italy, in an
effort to gain market share and increase sales."

The Plaintiffs allege that in an effort to increase profits and to
obtain an unfair competitive advantage Barilla falsely and
misleadingly labels certain of its Barilla(R) brand pastas as
ITALY'S #1 BRAND OF PASTA(R), deliberately leading reasonable
consumers, including the Plaintiffs, to believe that the Products
are made in Italy from ingredients sourced in Italy (the
"Challenged Representation"). According to them, contrary to this
labeling, the Products are manufactured in Barilla's plants in Iowa
and New York using ingredients sourced from countries other than
Italy.

According to the Plaintiffs, Barilla deliberately designed and
executed a decades long marketing campaign to identify the
Barilla(R) brand, company, and Products at issue in this case, as
authentic, genuine Italian pastas--made from ingredient sources in
Italy (like durum wheat), and manufactured in Italy.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert the following
claims for relief: 1) violation of the Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); 2) violation of the False Advertising Law ("FAL"); 3)
violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California
Civil Code section 1750, et seq.; 4) breach of warranty; and 5)
unjust enrichment/restitution.

In addition to the particular products Sinatro and Prost purchased
(the "purchased products"), the Plaintiffs' claims also challenge
the packaging for 52 additional Barilla-brand pastas across several
sub-brands: Classic Blue Box, Collezione Artisanal, Gluten Free,
Veggie, and Whole Grain. According to the Plaintiffs, these
additional products also contain the Challenged Representation on
the front labels of the packaging.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of allegedly
similarly situated persons, defined as:

     All residents of the United States who, within the
     applicable statute of limitations periods, purchased the
     Products, containing the Challenged Representation on the
     Products' front packaging, for purposes other than resale.

The Plaintiffs also seek to represent the following California
subclass:

     All residents of California who, within four years prior to
     the filing of this Complaint, purchased the Products,
     containing the Challenged Representation on the Products'
     front packaging, for purposes other than resale.

Barilla submitted a request for judicial notice along with its
motion to dismiss (Request for Judicial Notice, "RJN"). It asks the
Court to take judicial notice of six exhibits, including what it
contends are true and correct copies of front and side-nutrition
labels for Barilla-brand pastas as well as documents related to
Barilla's trademark, "Italy's #1 Brand of Pasta."

The Court declines to take judicial notice of Exhibits A and B.
Rather than asking the Court to take judicial notice of Barilla's
actual product labels or of complete copies of webpages depicting
the labels, Barilla submitted exhibits that contain images
purportedly cut and pasted from third party websites, accompanied
by typed captions that do not appear to have been part of the
original webpages. Defense counsel does not explain how Exhibits A
and B were created or how the images were selected.

In sum, Judge Ryu finds that Exhibits A and B lack foundation.
Given the lack of foundation of Exhibits A and B and the
Plaintiffs' authenticity objection, judicial notice is not
appropriate.

Barilla also appears to ask the Court to consider Exhibits A and B
pursuant to the incorporation by reference doctrine. This is
inappropriate given the parties' dispute about the authenticity of
the exhibits and the images therein, Judge Ryu opines.

Exhibits C through F contain excerpts of the file history for the
"Italy's #1 Brand of Pasta" trademark. Barilla argues that these
materials come directly from the United States Patent and Trademark
register and are judicially noticeable.

Judge Ryu notes that Barilla does not explain the significance or
relevance of these materials in its RJN or how they bear on the
Plaintiffs' claims for false, misleading, and deceptive marketing
practices. Accordingly, the Court denies the request to take
judicial notice of Exhibits C through F as moot.

Barilla argues that the FAC fails to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6). It also asserts that the Plaintiffs lack Article III
standing to pursue their claims.

Unlike the plaintiff in McGee v. S-L Snacks National, 982 F.3d 700,
706 (9th Cir. 2020), Judge Ryu opines that the Plaintiffs here
expressly allege that they would not have purchased the Products,
or would not have overpaid a premium for the Products' purported
Italian origin, had they known that the Challenged Representation
was false and the products were actually made in the United States,
using ingredients from countries other than Italy.

That is precisely what the Plaintiffs allege, Judge Ryu holds.
Their allegations are sufficient to establish an economic injury
for purposes of constitutional standing.

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in connection with their UCL,
FAL, CLRA, and breach of warranty claims. Barilla argues that the
Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief because they
"cannot plausibly allege they will be misled by the Products in the
future" now that they know that they are made in the United
States.

The Plaintiffs' reliance on Davidson is misplaced, Judge Ryu holds.
Unlike the plaintiff in Davidson, Judge Ryu opines that the
Plaintiffs cannot plausibly allege that they remain unaware that
the products are manufactured in the United States from ingredients
that are not from Italy or that they reasonably would be misled if
they encounter the Challenged Representation in the future.
Accordingly, they not established a "real and immediate threat of
repeated injury" sufficient to establish Article III standing to
assert their claim for injunctive relief. Their claim for
injunctive relief is, accordingly, dismissed.

Barilla next argues that the Plaintiffs cannot establish Article
III standing because they have not alleged causation; i.e., that
Barilla's use of the Challenged Representation caused any injury.
The Court finds that the FAC adequately alleges causation for
purposes of Article III.

The Plaintiffs' UCL, FAL, and CLRA are brought on behalf of the
California subclass only. Only the breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment/restitution claims are brought on behalf of the
nationwide class. Barilla does not address those claims, nor does
it perform a choice of law analysis or otherwise develop its
argument in any detail. Accordingly, the Court denies Barilla's
motion to dismiss the nationwide class claims.

Barilla argues that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue claims to
the extent that they include products they did not personally
purchase. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have pleaded that all
of the challenged products are sufficiently similar for them to
proceed with their claims.

Barilla argues that the Plaintiffs' claims are deficient in several
ways, including that the products' packaging is not materially
deceptive to a reasonable consumer. It also argues that the
Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for breach of warranty; that
their claims are grounded in fraud and do not satisfy Rule 9(b)'s
heightened pleading standard; that their claims are preempted by
federal trademark law; and that Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy
at law and, therefore, cannot recover in equity.

Judge Ryu notes that Barilla's motion does not address the
sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' common law warranty claim.
Accordingly, its motion to dismiss the breach of warranty claim is
denied.

Barilla next argues that the Plaintiffs' claims attack use of its
registered trademark "ITALY'S #1 BRAND OF PASTA." However, it
offers no authority for this argument and minimal analysis. The
Court cannot analyze an argument that counsel fails to develop.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the FAC on the basis of
preemption is denied.

Finally, Barilla argues that the Plaintiffs have affirmatively made
requests for damages in connection with the first four claims for
relief. The Plaintiffs also seek equitable relief, including
restitution and disgorgement. Barilla moves to dismiss Plaintiffs'
claims for equitable relief on the ground that they cannot show a
lack of an adequate remedy at law under Sonner v. Premier Nutrition
Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 837 (9th Cir. 2020).

At any rate, the Court may reassess the issue of available remedies
at a later stage of the case. Barilla's motion to deny the
Plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief is denied.

For these reasons, Barilla's motion to dismiss is granted in part
and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief is
dismissed with leave to amend. Any second amended complaint must be
filed within 14 days of the date of this order. The Court will hold
an initial case management conference on Nov. 2, 2022, at 1:30 p.m.
via Zoom. The parties' updated CMC statement was due on Oct. 26,
2022, only if there are new material developments beyond what is
contained in Docket No. 28.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 17, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/v9zuj93e from Leagle.com.


BGC HOUSING: Perth Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Pipes
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather McNeill, writing for WAtoday, reports that dozens of new
Perth homeowners are being forced to have their plumbing ripped out
and re-done around two years after moving in due to pipes bursting
and causing flooding and mould.

BGC Housing Group customer Kristy, who did not want her surname
published, said her Banksia Grove family home was uninhabitable,
with the builder paying them $150 a day to live somewhere else
while they repair the damage and replace the Iplex polybutylene
piping.

She is one of an estimated 50 customers considering a class action
against the builder, claiming homes built in 2019 and 2020 are only
now starting to realise the damage.

"We got the keys to the house in April 2020. On the 10th July 2022,
I woke up to hear water gushing through the wall near my living
room," she said.

"On 15th July 2022, we woke to find our ensuite flooded. To find
the burst pipe the plumber had to smash through the tiles in the
toilet and also ensuite. The damage has gone through to the master
bedroom, study nook area and the walk in robe.

"On 22nd September 2022, we got home to find our other bathroom
flooded which has gone through to three bedrooms down that side of
the house."

Midvale homeowner Maddy Black said the pipes in her house began to
burst in August, just over two years after her build was
completed.

"We woke up to find our carpet damp under our baby's bassinet," she
said.

"I assumed I had spilt some water during the night while feeding
our one-month-old daughter, but the carpet was getting damper by
the minute and upon further investigation, the wall in our bedroom
was damp, the bricks on the outer wall of our bedroom were damp and
water began appearing on our ensuite floor.

"Our master bedroom is no longer habitable.

"It feels as if the rest of our house is a ticking time bomb to
when the next leak will spring."

Plumbtechnics, a division of BGC, confirmed it was one of many
plumbing groups supplying the piping and install service for new
homes and had received reports from clients experiencing issues.

General manager Ian Warne said the company was investigating
whether only an individual batch of the piping was causing the
problem.

"We understand this is extremely frustrating and disappointing for
homeowners and we are working together with the manufacturer to
make immediate repairs," he said.

"We are doing all that we can to not only undertake the repairs as
quickly as possible, but are in contact with the manufacturer to
proactively find a suitable longer-term resolution.

"Clients can be reassured by the fact that we will remedy where
there is any issue and will collaborate proactively with them to
limit disruption."

BGC Housing Group includes Aussie Living Homes, Homestart, Smart
Homes for Living, Now Living, Terrace and Ventura South West.

The company declined to answer how many homes had been fitted with
the piping, or how many homeowners had sought repairs. It also did
not clarify whether it was still using the piping.

Building and Energy executive director Saj Abdoolakhan said the
watchdog was investigating a particular brand of polybutylene
plumbing pipe following a number of incidents involving its
apparent failure at some homes in WA.

The product is certified and to Australian standards.

"Building and Energy's investigation aims to determine if a
manufacturing issue and/or an installation issue is involved, as
well as whether particular product batches may be affected,"
Abdoolakhan said.

"Information gathering, site visits and testing and analysis of new
and damaged pipes are under way.

"Consumers with concerns about their polybutylene plumbing pipes
should contact their builder in the first instance."

In a statement, Iplex said it was aware of the incidents in some
areas of Perth related to leaks in hot and cold water systems where
Iplex polybutylene products may have been installed.

"Iplex recognises that homeowners are being impacted by the issue,"
it said.

"These incidents are under investigation, and we are working
closely with our valued customers which include plumbing merchants,
home builders and others in Perth to understand more about the
origin of these leaks as a matter of priority." [GN]

BIOGEN INC: Shash Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NADIA SHASH, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Nadia Shash, et al., individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Biogen
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-10017-IT, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Class
Action Complaint was filed by Leonard Shapiro, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant Biogen
and several of its employees for violation of federal securities
laws by allegedly making false or misleading statements in relation
to the development of a new Alzheimer's drug, aducanumab.

The Complaint seeks to represent all persons other than the
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of
Biogen stock between Oct. 22, 2019, and Nov. 6, 2020.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"),
15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4, Shapiro moved to be appointed lead
plaintiff and for the Court to approve his selection of lead
counsel. Nadia Shash and Biogen Investor Group (a group composed of
three individuals who individually held Biogen stock during the
Class Period) filed similar motions.

Biogen Investor Group subsequently filed a notice stating that,
upon review of the competing motions, it did not hold the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class. Accordingly,
Biogen Investor Group stated that it did not oppose Shash and
Shapiro's competing motions.

Shapiro initially opposed Shash's motion, but subsequently withdrew
his motion to be appointed lead plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court
treats Shash's motion as unopposed.

Consequently, Shapiro filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal stating
that the action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice solely
as to his claims.

On February 24, 2021, the Court appointed Nadia Shash as lead
plaintiff in the case.

On March 17, 2021, the Court ordered the transfer of the action to
the District of Massachusetts.

Following transfer, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended
Complaint and, after Defendants timely moved to dismiss, the
operative Second Amended Complaint. The Defendants responded with a
motion to dismiss the complaint. The Plaintiffs opposed and moved
to strike certain exhibits. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed two
requests for judicial notice. First, the Plaintiffs sought judicial
notice of a decision by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid
Services regarding its coverage of aducanumab. The Plaintiffs'
second request concerned a Biogen press release announcing upcoming
leadership changes. The Defendants opposed both requests.

On September 12, 2022, Judge Indira Talwani granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss, granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to strike, and denied the Plaintiffs' two
requests for judicial notice. The Court dismissed the case saying
the Second Amended Complaint failed to demonstrate that the
Defendants' challenged conduct caused the Plaintiffs' losses and
they have not adequately pled the loss causation necessary to state
a claim for securities fraud.

The appellate case is captioned as Shash et al. v. Biogen Inc. et
al., Case No. 22-1773, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit, filed on October 13, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants NADIA SHASH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
            THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA
            609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
            South Orange, NJ 07079
            Telephone: (973) 313-1887
            E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

                   - and -

            Jonathan R. Horne, Esq.
            Phillip Kim, Esq.
            THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
            275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
            New York, NY 10016
            Telephone: (212) 686-1060
            E-mail: jhorne@rosenlegal.com
                    pkim@rosenlegal.com

Defendants-Appellees BIOGEN INC., et al., are represented by:

            Audra J. Soloway, Esq.
            PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
            1285 Avenue of the Americas
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (212) 373-3000
            E-mail: asoloway@paulweiss.com

                   - and -

            Shauna E. Woods, Esq.
            KENDALL BRILL AND KELLY LLP
            10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1725
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 556-2700
            Facsimile: (310) 556-2705
            E-mail: swoods@kbkfirm.com

                   - and -

            William J. Trach, Esq.
            LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
            John Hancock Tower, 27th Fl.
            200 Clarendon Street
            Boston, MA 02116
            Telephone: (617) 880-4514
            E-mail: william.trach@lw.com

BLUEMERCURY INC: Suazo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Paris Suazo and Alexa Suart, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Bluemercury, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-06307 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2022), is
brought seeking reimbursement for business expenses, unpaid wages,
and interest thereon, penalties, declaratory and equitable relief,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. The
Plaintiffs have been harmed by the Defendant's unlawful policies
and/or practices in that they have worked off the clock for the
benefit of the Defendant without compensation. As a result of the
Defendant's policies and/or practices, the Plaintiffs worked in
excess of 8 hours a day or 40 hours in a week, but were not
compensated for all of this time, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked as Store Managers for the Defendant.

The Defendant operates Bluemercury retail stores in over 20 states,
including Florida, California, and New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN
          One California Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Sabine Jean, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          Email: sjean@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                 cjones@shavitzlaw.com


BOSAL INDUSTRIES: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $3.152-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Action reports that certain vehicle owners could benefit
from a $3.152 million settlement -- round five of a $1.2 billion
auto parts class action settlement resolving antitrust
allegations.

The settlement benefits individuals who purchased or leased an
eligible new vehicle in the United States between 2002 and 2018 or
who paid to replace one or more qualifying vehicle parts (not for
resale). A full list of eligible vehicles and applicable time
periods can be found on the settlement website.

Automotive parts manufacturers often produce the same or similar
parts for countless vehicles under a range of brands. For example,
electronic braking systems manufactured by Robert Bosch could be
used in multiple vehicle brands.

According to several coordinated antitrust class action lawsuits,
automotive parts manufacturers conspired together to artificially
raise and fix the price of vehicle components. This conduct was
allegedly the subject of the largest-ever antitrust investigation
pursued by the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division.

"To date, as a result of its widespread investigation, the DOJ has
charged more than 100 individuals and companies with criminal
antitrust violations and the DOJ has levied, to date, more than
$2.9 billion in criminal fines against various automotive parts
manufacturers," the auto parts class action lawsuit notes.

Although manufacturers faced consequences from federal authorities,
consumers argued they were owed compensation directly from the
companies. The vehicle owners and lessees sought compensation for
alleged overpayment for car parts and vehicles.

The vehicle parts manufacturers haven't admitted any wrongdoing but
agreed to pay $1.2 billion to resolve these claims. Rounds one to
four of the settlement resolved claims from various manufacturers
and covered parts such as air conditioning systems, brake hoses,
bearings and more.

The fifth and current round of the settlement includes $3.152
million and resolves claims with Bosal Industries Georgia Inc.,
Bosal USA, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch LLC, ZF TRW Automotive
Holdings Corp, ZF Friedrichshafen AG and Lucas Automotive GmbH.

Automotive parts covered by round five are electronic braking
systems, hydraulic braking systems and exhaust systems.

Under the terms of the auto parts antitrust settlement, class
members can receive a cash payment based on the number of vehicles
purchased, the amount paid for replacement parts and other factors.


Payments will be proportional based on these factors, though all
class members will receive at least $100 for claims across all
rounds of the settlement.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Dec. 20, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the auto parts antitrust settlement
is scheduled for Jan. 12, 2023.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Jan. 7, 2023. Class members who submitted a
claim during rounds one through four do not need to file another
claim form.

Who's Eligible
Individuals who purchased or leased a new vehicle in the United
States between 2002 and 2018 or who paid to replace one or more
qualifying vehicle parts (not for resale)

A full list of eligible vehicles and applicable time periods can be
found on the settlement website.

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase applicable

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
01/07/2023

Case Name
Re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 12-MD-02311, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division

Final Hearing
01/12/2023

Settlement Website
AutoPartsClass.com

Claims Administrator
Auto Parts Settlements
P.O. Box 10163
Dublin, OH 43017-3163
info@AutoPartsClass.com
877-940-5043

Class Counsel
Adam Zapala
COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP

William V Reiss
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP

Marc M Seltzer
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP

Defense Counsel
Gary J Mouw
Regan Ann Gibson
Ronald G DeWaard
VARNUM LLP [GN]

BOSTON POST FOOD: Pichardo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Secundino Garcia Pichardo and Eric Ratzlaff, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. BOSTON POST FOOD CORP.
d/b/a C-TOWN, 57JR FOODS CORP d/b/a C TOWN SUPERMARKET, and C TOWN
SUPERMARKETS 1-20, Case No. 1:22-cv-09157 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25,
2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law, that he is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: unpaid overtime premiums; unpaid wages, including
overtime, due to time shaving; unpaid spread of hours premiums;
unlawful penalty deductions; liquidated damages; statutory
penalties; and attorney's fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs were time shaved by the Defendants because they
engaged in substantial off-the-clock work. At the end of the day,
the Plaintiffs would be instructed by there managers to clock out.
However, the Plaintiffs would continue to work an additional 30
minutes every day. FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members
were similarly engaged in unpaid off-the-clock work. The Plaintiffs
regularly worked over 40 hours per week, but the Defendants failed
to pay them the proper overtime premium rate of one-and-half times
of their regular hourly rate for each hour exceeding 40 hours per
workweek including due to time shaving, in violation of the FLSA
and the NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants to work for the
Defendants' C-Town supermarket.

The Defendants operate 15 supermarkets in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-465-1188
          Fax: 212-465-1181


BOTANY BAY: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Botany Bay, Inc.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. The Botany Bay, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09120 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

The Botany Bay -- https://www.thebotanybay.net/ -- is a company
that operates in the Retail industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUG'S EAR LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bug's Ear, LLC. The
case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bug's Ear, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09121
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

The Bug's Ear -- https://thebugsear.com/ -- is a gift, jewelry,
women's and baby apparel, shoes and home decor boutique.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUNCHES OF BOWS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bunches of Bows, LLC.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bunches of Bows, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09122 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

Bunches of Bows -- https://www.bunchesofbows.com/ -- is the best
gift shop in NKY. We have home decor, mongrammed gifts, seasonal
decor, and much more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUTTERBALL LLC: Figueroa Appeals Court Ruling Narrowing Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSVALDO FIGUEROA is taking an appeal from a court order denying his
motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Osvaldo
Figueroa, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Butterball, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00585-D,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action suit alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA),
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated poultry
workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek and for denying the Plaintiff's reasonable
accommodation, disciplining him, and terminating his employment.

On Sept. 15, 2021, the Court granted Butterball's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's first amended complaint and granted Figueroa leave
to file a second amended complaint. On Oct. 4, 2021, Figueroa filed
a second amended complaint against Butterball alleging claims under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act.

On Nov. 1, 2021, Butterball moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and filed
a memorandum in support. On Nov. 23, 2021, Figueroa responded in
opposition and Butterball replied on Dec. 10, 2021.

On July 27, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. Judge James C. Dever III dismissed
with prejudice the Plaintiff's NCWHA claims, but added that the
Plaintiff may proceed with his FLSA claim.

On August 10, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the Court denied on September 29, 2022.

The appellate case is captioned Osvaldo Figueroa v. Butterball,
LLC, Case No. 22-289, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, filed on October 13, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner OSVALDO FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
            Charlotte Smith, Esq.
            LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
            1020 Southhill Drive
            Cary, NC 27513
            Telephone: (919) 741-8693

Defendant-Respondent BUTTERBALL, LLC is represented by:

            Scott David Anderson, Esq.
            Theresa Sprain, Esq.
            WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
            555 Fayetteville Street
            Raleigh, NC 27601
            Telephone: (919) 755-2124

CALIFORNIA DOC: Thomas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. The case is styled as Billy
Thomas, Andre Brown, Darrell Denson, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00328693-CU-PO-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 20, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other PI/PD/WD – Civil Unlimited."

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation --
https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/ -- is the penal law enforcement agency of
the government of California responsible for the operation of the
California state prison and parole systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12th St., Ste. 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607-5009
          Phone: 510-891-9800
          Fax: 510-891-7030
          Email: cab@colevannote.com


CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses McKenna v. Cisneros Prisoner Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD PHILLIP McKENNA, Plaintiff v. T. CISNEROS, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01294-KJM-CKD P (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California enters an Order and Findings and
Recommendations:

   a. granting the Plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in
      forma pauperis;

   b. dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint;

   c. granting the Plaintiff's motions to amend and requests to
      add claims or defendants;

   d. denying the Plaintiff's motion to add a plaintiff to this
      civil action; and

   e. recommending that the Plaintiff's motions for a preliminary
      injunction/temporary restraining order be denied without
      prejudice.

The Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He
initiated the action by filing a 116-page complaint on July 9, 2022
which is before the Court for screening. Also pending before the
Court are two separate motions to proceed in forma pauperis, three
motions for a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order,
three requests to amend the complaint or add claims or defendants,
a motion to intervene, and a second motion to reconsider the
Court's denial of the appointment of counsel.

First, the Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

As the Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing
required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a), Judge Delaney grants his
request. The Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee
of $350 for the action. By separate order, the Court will direct
the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee
from the Plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of
the Court. Thereafter, the Plaintiff will be obligated for monthly
payments of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to his
prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the
appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount
in his account exceeds $10, until the filing fee is paid in full.

Second, the Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint by adding
constitutional violations against another prisoner. According to
him, they were both denied a fair hearing for a disciplinary
violation.

Judge Delaney construes the Plaintiff's motion as a request to
bring a class action lawsuit on his behalf as well as on the behalf
of other similarly situated plaintiffs. However, the Plaintiff is a
non-lawyer proceeding without counsel. It is well established that
a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class.
Therefore, Judge Delaney denies the Plaintiff's motion to amend for
the purpose of bringing a class action.

Third, Judge Delaney screens complaint. In the complaint, the
Plaintiff names the wardens at California State Prison-Corcoran,
Mule Creek State Prison, and the California Medical Facility as
defendants. In addition, he sues a "lady sargant," a correctional
officer identified only as "Miss B.," and other unidentified
officers and prison officials at the California Substance Abuse and
Treatment Facility and California State Prison-Sacramento. The
factual allegations raised in the complaint date back to the
criminal proceedings initiated against him in the San Bernardino
Superior Court that resulted in a sentence of 118 years to life.

Since that unspecified date, the Plaintiff has experienced numerous
constitutional violations at various prisons ranging from acts of
retaliation, the loss and destruction of his personal property, due
process violations at disciplinary hearings, the denial of basic
necessities and access to the courts, and the failure to protect
him from threats by other inmates. He specifically alleges that
excessive force was used against him during a cell extraction on
May 28, 2022 which led to him receiving a false Rules Violation
Report for battery on a peace officer. The complaint does not
specify what officer(s) are responsible for this use of excessive
force against him, other than asserting that the warden failed to
protect him.

Judge Delaney finds the allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint so
vague and conclusory that it fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. The Plaintiff must allege with at least some
degree of particularity overt acts which the Defendants engaged in
that support his claim. For all these reasons, the Plaintiff's
complaint must be dismissed. Judge Delaney, however, grants leave
to file an amended complaint.

If the Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he must
demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a
deprivation of his constitutional rights. Also, his amended
complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is
involved.

In addition, the Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer
to a prior pleading in order to make his amended complaint
complete. Once he files an amended complaint, the original pleading
no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended
complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the
involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Fourth, in his motion for a preliminary injunction, the Plaintiff
seeks an order requiring the wardens at various prisons, including
the California Medical Facility where he is currently housed, to
place him in protective custody. He alleges that active prison gang
members call him a "rat" and other derogatory prison slang after
being told to do so by unnamed CDCR officials. This places him in
imminent danger of serious physical injury.

In his separately filed motion for a temporary restraining order,
the Plaintiff indicates that he was attacked by another inmate on
Aug. 18, 2022. He alleges that this attack was set up by guards as
retaliation for filing the civil lawsuit. By way of relief, he
seeks a court order to get the water in his cell turned back on.

In a supplemental motion for emergency relief as well as a motion
to intervene, the Plaintiff alleges that the prison is opening his
outgoing mail to the Government Claims Office in violation of state
regulations and otherwise tampering with his mail. He seeks a court
order preventing prison officials from interfering with his
correspondence concerning legal matters.

In light of the Plaintiff's failure to state any claim upon which
relief may be granted in his complaint, Judge Delaney recommends
denying the Plaintiff's motions for an order enjoining the
Defendants. He says the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is
likely to succeed on the merits because the complaint is being
dismissed for failing to state a claim. Furthermore, the Plaintiff
has not provided any evidence to support his claims aside from his
own conclusory statements. For all these reasons, he recommends
denying the Plaintiff's motions for a permanent
injunction/temporary restraining order.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Delaney grants the Plaintiff's
motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff is
obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for the action.
All fees will be collected and paid in accordance with the Court's
order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation filed concurrently therewith.

The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. He is granted 30 days from
the date of service of the Order to file an amended complaint no
longer than 25 pages in length that complies with the requirements
of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the
docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Amended
Complaint." The Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in
accordance with the Order will result in a recommendation that the
action be dismissed.

Due to the Plaintiff's filing of repetitive and duplicative
motions, Judge Delaney limits the Plaintiff's filings for the
duration of the case. The Plaintiff is cautioned against filing
repetitive motions which overburden the Court's resources and
further delay a ruling in the matter. He will be limited to filing
the following documents:

      a. One non-dispositive motion at a time. No additional
non-dispositive motion(s) may be filed until the Court has ruled on
the pending motion;

      b. One dispositive motion, limited to one memorandum of
points and authorities in support of the motion and one reply to
any opposition; and,

      c. One set of objections to any Findings and
Recommendations.

Any pleading filed in violation of the Court order will be returned
to the Plaintiff and stricken from the docket.

Judge Delaney grants the Plaintiff's motions to amend and requests
to add claims or defendants consistent with the Court's dismissal
of the Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. He denies the
Plaintiff's motion to add a plaintiff to this civil action.

Judge Delaney further recommends that the Plaintiff's motions for a
preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order be denied
without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after
being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may
file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all
parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to
the objections will be served and filed within 14 days after
service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to
file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
appeal the District Court's order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Order & Findings &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2uv3hs from
Leagle.com.


CAPITAL ONE BANK: Sullivan Sues Over Unlawful Adverse Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Sullivan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Case No.
3:22-cv-00678-REP (E.D. Va., Oct. 20, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant for actual, statutory, and punitive damages, costs, and
attorneys' fees brought pursuant to the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act and the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Reporting Act due to
unlawful adverse action with respect to a credit transaction.

The Plaintiff brings this ECOA action against Capital One with
respect to the requirement that Capital One provide written adverse
action notices containing the specific reasons for the adverse
action taken when taking such adverse action with respect to a
credit transaction. In addition, the Plaintiff brings a class claim
against Capital One for violations of the MCCRA for unilaterally
closing credit card accounts maintained by Massachusetts consumers
without providing these consumers in ten business days the
requisite written notice of the identity and contact information of
the consumer reporting agency issuing the report that Capital One
relied upon in taking adverse action on Plaintiff's account.

By refusing to provide Plaintiff the specific reasons for adverse
action, Capital One has denied him his private statutory right to
receive such information, of the educational benefit of such
information, and the ability to engage in the informed use of
credit. In addition, by refusing to provide Plaintiff the specific
reasons for adverse action, including the source of such
information, Capital One has denied him his due process right to
correct possible errors. For these reasons and those articulated in
the facts below, Plaintiff has suffered concrete and particularized
injuries such as the decrease and/or loss of credit resulting from
Capital One's conduct, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in Norfolk County,
Massachusetts.

Capital One is a national banking association headquartered in this
District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew Sarrett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          626 East Broad Street, Suite 300
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Phone: (804) 905-9900
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          Email: drew@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Phone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                 craig@clalegal.com


CARRET ASSET MANAGEMENT: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carret Asset
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Carret Asset
Management, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08978 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2022).

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

Carret Asset Management LLC -- http://www.carret.com/-- is a New
York City based independent investment advisor with an
entrepreneurial corporate culture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASTLE NAVIGATION: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Castle Navigation,
Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Castle Navigation, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09001 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2022).

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

Castle Navigation Inc. -- http://www.brassinstrument.com/castle.asp
-- offer fine brass reproductions of. sextants, compasses, clocks,
telescopes, and other surveying and nautical items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CHW GROUP INC: Zononi Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHW Group, Inc. The
case is styled as Lee Zononi, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CHW Group, Inc. doing business as:
Choice Home Warranty, Case No. 2:22-cv-14358-AMC (S.D. Fla., Oct.
20, 2022).

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

Choice Home Warranty (CHW) -- https://www.choicehomewarranty.com/
-- provides comprehensive coverage at an affordable price to
customers and saves homeowners money on expensive repairs and
replacement costs for home systems and appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo
          HIRALDO PA
          401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 400-4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel Nicole Edelsberg, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 610-5223
          Email: rachel@dapeer.com


CITIZENS BANK: Conti Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CONTI is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his
lawsuit entitled John Conti, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Citizens Bank, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-1770, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brought this class action suit against the Defendant for alleged
violation of Rhode Island General Law section 19-9-2(a), which
requires a mortgage lender making a loan secured by an
owner-occupied residential property of one-to-four living units
located in Rhode Island to pay the borrower interest for money
received in advance from the borrower for tax and insurance that is
held by the lender in an "escrow" account until payment is due. The
Plaintiff and the Class seek damages, restitution, and
reimbursement, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief,
pursuant to claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered
into the Mortgage Agreement, wherein the Plaintiff was required to
deposit funds into an escrow account and the Defendant was
expressly required to comply with all applicable state and federal
laws in connection with the Mortgage Agreement. In reliance on the
Defendant's express agreement to comply with all applicable federal
and state laws, the Plaintiff continuously made payments into his
escrow account, as he was required to do by the Mortgage Agreement.
However, the Plaintiff never received from the Defendant -- through
direct payment, credit to future payments or otherwise -- any
interest accrued on the funds maintained in the escrow account on
his behalf, in direct violation of R.I. Gen. Laws section
19-9-2(a). Class Members also did not receive interest on their
escrow accounts, in violation of uniform agreements the Defendant
had with members of the Class. Because the Defendant did not pay
interest to the Plaintiff on funds paid into his escrow account,
the Defendant violated applicable state law and therefore was and
is in breach of the Mortgage Agreement, says the complaint.

On September 17, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim.

On September 28, 2022, the Court granted the Defendant's motion
through an Order entered by Judge Mary S. McElroy. Judge McElroy
concludes that the Plaintiff has not set forth plausible claims for
breach of contract or unjust enrichment for Citizens' alleged
violation of R.I.G.L. Section 19-9-2(a) because, except for loan
types not at issue, that statute is preempted by the National Bank
Act.

The appellate case is captioned Conti v. Citizens Bank, N.A., Case
No. 22-1770, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, filed on October 14, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN CONTI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Britany Leanne Brown, Esq.
            GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD PLLC
            9897 Lake Worth Rd., Ste. 302
            Lake Worth, FL 33467
            Telephone: (561) 232-6002

                   - and -

            Patrick F. Dowling, Jr., Esq.
            D'AMICO & BURCHFIELD LLP
            536 Atwells Ave.
            Providence, RI 02909
            Telephone: (401) 454-1212

                   - and -

            Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
            GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
            102 Half Moon Bay Dr.
            Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
            Telephone: (917) 983-9321

                   - and -

            David J. George, Esq.
            GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD PLLC
            9897 Lake Worth Rd., Ste. 302
            Lake Worth, FL 33467
            Telephone: (888) 421-4529

                   - and -

            Michael Liskow, Esq.
            CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
            1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Fl.
            New York, NY 10036
            Telephone: (212) 899-1761

                   - and -

            Janine Lee Pollack, Esq.
            CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
            1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Fl.
            New York, NY 10036
            Telephone: (212) 899-1760

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

            Brenna Anatone Force, Esq.
            ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN PC
            1 Citizens Plaza, 8th Fl.
            Providence, RI 02903
            Telephone: (401) 274-7200

CITY WIDE PROPERTY: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Wide Property
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as King Garcia, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
City Wide Property Services, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2022-00328787-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct.
21, 2022).

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

City Wide Property Services, Inc. -- https://citywideps.com/ -- is
a California based full-service Commercial property services
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 818-265-1020
          Fax: 818-265-1021


CLOUDERA INC: Securities Class Suit Dismissed W/o Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CLOUDERA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This
Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 19-cv-03221-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

Before the Court is Defendants Cloudera, Intel Corp., Thomas J.
Reilly, Jim Frankola, Michael A. Olson, Ping Li, Martin I. Cole,
Kimberly L. Hammonds, Rosemary Schooler, Steve J. Sordello, Michael
A. Stankey, Priya Jain, Robert Bearden, Paul Cormier, Peter Fenton,
and Kevin Klausmeyer's motion, filed Aug. 5, 2021, to dismiss the
SAC.

In 2005, Cloudera co-founder Doug Cutting created a "data storage
and processing platform" called Hadoop. In 2008, Cutting, Olson,
and others founded Cloudera, and in 2009, the Company released its
own version of Hadoop, which peaked in popularity by 2015.

In April 2017, Cloudera announced an initial public offering, and
the Company's share price closed on April 28, 2017, the first day
of trading, at $18.10. The Plaintiffs allege that between April 28,
2017, and June 5, 2019, the Company repeatedly and misleadingly
assured investors that it possessed an 'original cloud native
architecture' and 'cloud-native platform.'" Specifically, in 2018,
Cloudera released Altus, which, according to the Plaintiffs, it
"misleadingly touted as a cloud offering," even though "it lacked
any of the key features of effective cloud computing."

On Oct. 3, 2018, Cloudera announced it was merging with
Hortonworks, Inc., and, that same day, Reilly, at that time
Cloudera's CEO and Chairman of its Board of Directors, along with
Frankola, Cloudera's CFO, hosted an investor conference call, in
which they promoted the Merger as one that would "unlock powerful
synergies." According to the Plaintiffs, however, the Merger was
consummated because the Company's highest-ranking insiders knew
that Cloudera was then facing competitive industry forces so severe
that they were simply incapable of achieving organic growth.

In addition, the Plaintiffs allege, Insider Defendants Reilly,
Frankola, Olson, and Li, along with Director Defendants Cole,
Hammonds, Schooler, Sordello, Stankey, Jain, Bearden, Cormier,
Fenton, and Klausmeyer, planned and participated in the preparation
of the statements contained in the Merger Registration Statement,
effective Nov. 20, 2018, which contained material
misrepresentations and omissions.

On Jan. 3, 2019, the Merger closed. Thereafter, in March 2019,
Cloudera announced it was developing a product called Cloudera Data
Platform ("CDP"), which it later released for the public cloud in
September 2019 and for the private cloud in August 2020. According
to the Plaintiffs, CDP was the Company's first ever cloud-native
product.

On June 5, 2019, the last day of the Class Period, Cloudera
disclosed a profoundly negative first quarter results for the
period ended April 30, 2019, and drastically reduced fiscal year
2020 guidance, and further announced the departures of Reilly and
Olson from the Company. Also on June 5, 2019, during the Company's
earnings call, Reilly stated that the announcement of the Merger in
October 2018 created uncertainty. The following day, on June 6,
2019, the Company's share price closed at $5.21 per share, a single
day drop of approximately 40.8% on unusually massive volume of 57.9
million shares traded.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert the following
five Claims for Relief: (1) a claim alleging, as against Cloudera,
Intel, the Director Defendants, and the Insider Defendants,
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Count I),
(2) a claim alleging, as against Cloudera, violations of Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act (Count II), (3) a claim alleging, as
against Intel, the Director Defendants, and the Insider Defendants,
violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act (Count III), (4) a
claim alleging, as against Cloudera and the Insider Defendants,
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (Count IV),
and (5) a claim alleging, as against the Insider Defendants,
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act (Count V).

At the outset, the Defendants request the Court "consider documents
incorporated by reference in the SAC and take judicial notice of
certain documents," altogether, 37 exhibits submitted in connection
with their motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants'
request as to Exhibits 2, 10, 19, 24, 26, 28, 31, and 36, and
further oppose the request to the extent any exhibit is offered for
the truth of the matters stated therein.

As to the opposed exhibits, although the Defendants request the
Court take judicial notice of Exhibit 10, a "Form 4 filed on behalf
of Ping Li with the SEC on December 14, 2017," and Exhibit 24, a
"Form 8-K as filed with the SEC on December 6, 2018," neither is
mentioned in their motion to dismiss, and the Defendants fail to
otherwise identify the facts therein on which they seek to rely.
Accordingly, Judge Chesney denies the Defendants' request with
respect to Exhibits 10 and 24.

Next, although the Defendants request judicial notice of Exhibit
36, "a chart listing Cloudera's stock prices from April 28, 2017,
through January 31, 2020, which was obtained from the Yahoo!
Finance website," to establish "Cloudera's stock price rose in the
months following a sale" of stock by Olson, Judge Chesney takes
judicial notice of Exhibit 36 only to the extent it establishes
Cloudera's historical stock prices.

As to the unopposed exhibits, many are documents that are
referenced and quoted in the SAC, namely, SEC filings or
transcripts of investor conference calls, and the Plaintiffs do not
dispute their authenticity. Accordingly, Judge Chesney grants the
Defendants' request as to those exhibits, specifically, Exhibits 1,
3-9, 12-18, 20-23, 25, 27, 29, and 30.

Further, as to Exhibit 34, a "Voting and Standstill Agreement dated
March 28, 2017, between Intel Corporation and Cloudera, Inc.," she
grants the Defendants' unopposed request for judicial notice of the
fact that said agreement "prohibited Intel from increasing its
holding above 20%," and, as to Exhibit 37, "a copy of the New York
Stock Exchange's ("NYSE") Listed Company Manual sections 303A.01
and 303A.02, as accessed from the NYSE's website on Aug. 3, 2021,"
she grants the Defendants' unopposed request for judicial notice
that said manual establishes what "those rules provide." None of
the noticed facts in Exhibits 34 and 37 is subject to reasonable
dispute.

Judge Chesney next turns to the Plaintiffs' claims. In the SAC, the
Plaintiffs challenge 42 statements, comprising 32 under the
Exchange Act and 10 under the Securities Act. Judge Chesney
considers first the Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims, then proceeds
to their Securities Act claims.

With respect to Count IV, Judge Chesney holds that agrees with the
Defendants that none of the challenged statements were false or
misleading at the time they were made or they are inactionable as a
matter of law. To the extent the Plaintiffs' claims are based on
any of the 24 statements, such claims are subject to dismissal. She
says the Plaintiffs plead no evidentiary facts to support
additional assertion, whether from a knowledgeable witness, any of
the referenced documents that used the term "cloud-native" or
"cloud architecture," or any other source.

To the extent the Plaintiffs' claims are based on Statement 13, 15,
or 16, such claims are subject to dismissal as well. Judge Chesney
finds that the Plaintiffs' continued allegations that Cloudera
"lacked any cloud-native architecture" and "did not compete in the
cloud market" are inadequate to establish falsity.

To the extent the Plaintiffs' claims are based on Statement 14 or
32, such claims are also subject to dismissal. She says the
Plaintiffs again plead the statements were false, alleging
"Cloudera did not offer a cloud offering because its platform was
not cloud-native or based in cloud-architecture," which allegation
is unaccompanied by supporting facts.

To the extent the Plaintiffs' claims are based on Statement 26, 27,
or 28, Judge Chesney holds such claims are subject to dismissal.
She finds that by the May 25 Order, Judge Koh dismissed the
Plaintiffs' claims to the extent based on Statement 28, and also
dismissed those claims to the extent based on statements identical
in substance to Statements 26 and 27, finding they constituted
non-actionable forward-looking statements protected under the
PSLRA's safe harbor.

With respect to Count V, Judge Chesney holds that the Plaintiffs
have failed to state a claim under Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5,
and, consequently, such failure precludes them from stating a claim
under Section 20(a).

Regarding Counts I and II, the Plaintiffs now allege the Defendants
made 10 false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 11
and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. The Defendants argue the
statements should again be dismissed for the same reasons Judge Koh
previously found.

Judge Chesney agrees.  Statements 33 and 34 are portions of
Statement 17; Statement 35 is the same as Statement 18; and
Statement 36, with the exception of the phrase "ongoing performance
in the areas of cloud," constitutes a combination of Statements 8b,
8c, and 18a. Statement 40, although not alleged earlier in the SAC,
is the same as Statement 53 in the CA, which by the May 25 Order,
Judge Koh found insufficient to support the Plaintiffs' claims. To
the extent the Plaintiffs' claims are based on Statement 33, 34,
35, 36, or 40, such claims are subject to dismissal because the
Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient factual allegations to
support their allegation that "the risks warned of had, in fact,
already materialized at the time of the Merger."

To the extent the Plaintiffs' claims are based on Statement 37, 38,
or 39, such claims are subject to dismissal. Judge Chesney holds
that the Plaintiffs offer no new allegations or arguments in
support of their assertion that these statements were false when
made nor as to why they were not forward-looking statements
protected under the PSLRA's safe harbor.

Turning to Count III, Judge Chesney holds that the Plaintiffs have
failed to state a claim under Section 11 or Section 12, and,
consequently, such failure precludes them from stating a claim
under Section 15.

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Chesney grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the SAC and dismisses the SAC without further
leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4b7khn29 from Leagle.com.


COLUMBUS, OH: CMHA Wants Judge to Toss Tenants' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Rantala, writing for WSYX, reports that the Columbus
Metropolitan Housing Authority is asking a judge to throw out a
class-action lawsuit filed against the organization in Franklin
County.

While facing allegations of system failures that are keeping
residents homeless, attorneys representing the authority claim CMHA
did not do anything wrong.

Housing Management Firm Highpoint Asset Management LLC filed the
lawsuit on behalf of the 13,000 people in the Housing Choice
Voucher Program this summer.

Many holding the federal rental assistance vouchers have called On
Your Side Problem Solvers to say they've not received timely or
reliable inspections from CMHA that would allow them to move into
housing. In addition, landlords have claimed CMHA isn't paying the
Section 8 subsidies in a timely manner.

Highpoint managers contacted Problem Solvers this summer to say
they had more than a half dozen tenants with vouchers but unpaid
rent for months.

Instead of evicting their tenants, they filed suit against CMHA and
CGI, which is the authority's third-party vendor. CMHA filed a
motion to dismiss the case, citing Highpoint did not have any
contracts with CMHA filed to show a legal relationship.

They state that also means CMHA cannot be in breach of contract.

Attorneys for CMHA indicated the authority disperses assistance
funds on behalf of the government, which makes the authority immune
from the legal action.

CMHA was holding an intake event at its RISE Center to expedite
landlord payments as well as resident intake and certification.
Problem Solvers was prohibited from attending the event. [GN]

CONDUENT BUSINESS: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Carnley EFTA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
second amended motion for class certification in the lawsuit
captioned Jon Carnley, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Conduent Business
Services, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-1075 in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

The class action arises out of the Defendants' administration of
the Direct Express program, which provides prepaid debit cards to
federal benefit recipients who receive their benefits
electronically. The Plaintiffs are current and former customers of
Defendants Conduent Business Services LLC and Comerica, Inc. who
assert that unauthorized users withdrew funds from their Direct
Express accounts and that the Defendants failed to properly respond
to the fraudulent transactions, thereby violating the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1693, et seq., its
implementing regulations ("Regulation E"), 12 C.F.R. Sec. 1005.1,
et seq., and the Terms of Use that constitute the contract between
the parties.

On April 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended motion
for class certification.

On August 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended motion
for class certification, which Judge Xavier Rodriguez granted in
part and denied in part. The Court held that certification of the
Plaintiffs' three classes of EFTA claims is appropriate. However,
the Court cannot identify a uniform practice or procedure that
gives rise to the putative class members' claims for breach of
contract; it is not clear how the Court could craft a remedy that
would benefit the class as a whole. Therefore, the motion was
denied as to the breach-of-contract class.

The appellate case is captioned Carnley v. Conduent, Case No.
22-90054, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on October 13, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents JON CARNLEY, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
            VAUGHT FIRM, L.L.C.
            1910 Pacific Avenue
            Dallas, TX 75201
            Telephone: (972) 707-7816

Defendants-Petitioners Conduent Business Services, LLC, d/b/a
Direct Express, et al. are represented by:

            Jonathan Chally, Esq.
            COUNCILL, GUNNEMANN & CHALLY, L.L.C.
            1201 W. Peachtree Street, N.W.
            Atlanta, GA 30309
            Telephone: (404) 537-3129

CUMBERLAND COUNTY JAIL: Collagan Files Suit in D. Maine
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CUMBERLAND COUNTY
JAIL, et al. The case is styled as Leslie Collagan, and others
similarly situated v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY JAIL, Sheriffs, Officers,
Sargent, Medical Staff; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SHERIFF JOYCE;
CHIEF GAGNON; MAJOR KORTES; CAPTAIN COSTELLO; JON DOE 1-5; JANE DOE
1-5; CAPTAIN GOULET, Case No. 2:22-cv-00328-JAW (D. Maine, Oct. 25,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

The Cumberland County Jail --
https://www.cumberlandcountypa.gov/95/Prison -- is located in
Portland, Maine, and is the largest jail in the state.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CURALEAF INC: Kelley Sues Over Fair Workweek Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Frankie Kelley, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. CURALEAF, INC., Case No. 221002070 (Pa. Ct. of Common
Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Oct. 25, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant violation of the Philadelphia Fair Workweek Law by
failing to provide predictable schedules with at least 10 or
14-days' notice, changing employees schedules at the last minute,
and failing to offer new shifts to current employees before hiring
new employees.

When the Defendant first hired the Plaintiff, or subsequently
thereafter when the Fair Workweek Law went into effect, the
Defendant did not provide them with a written good faith estimate
of the hours, dates, time, and locations of their expected regular
schedule in violation of the Philadelphia Fair Workweek Law. Prior
to January 1, 2021, the Defendant did not always provide the
Plaintiff with 10 days' notice of the work schedule and after
January 1, 2021, the Defendant failed to always provided with 14
days' notice of the work schedule in violation of the Philadelphia
Fair Workweek Law. The defendant failed to post the schedule in the
workplace and personally provided to the plaintiff on paper or
electronically. The Defendant regularly changed the Plaintiff
schedule by more than 20 minutes and failed to pay them
Predictability Pay in violation of the Philadelphia Fair Workweek
law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a Store Associate by the Defendant.

Curaleaf is a leading provider of consumer products and
cannabis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
          Willig, Williams & Davidson
          1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 656-3679
          Email: rhancock@wwdlaw.com


DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE: Montano Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria M. Montano, individually, and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees v. DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE
SYSTEMS, INC., a Utah corporation; DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE - RWS,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV34044 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 21, 2022),
is brought to recover unpaid compensations and penalties for the
Labor and Workforce Development Agency, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated Aggrieved Employees under the Private
Attorneys General Act as a result of the Defendants' systematic
violations of the law.

The Defendants have implemented unlawful written policies with
respect to meal and rest breaks. The Defendants also require its
non-exempt employees, who are informed that the needs of the
businesses take top priority, to work through meal and rest breaks,
and to take untimely meal periods. The Plaintiff and the other
aggrieved employees were not allowed to take meal periods unless
they worked 6 hours or more. Moreover, the Plaintiff and other
aggrieved employees are not always afforded full 30-minute meal
periods and are often under pressure to return to work early since
they are too busy to complete their assigned work during scheduled
shifts. As a result, the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees
have been denied the ability to take the meal and rest breaks that
they were and are legally entitled to. Moreover, the Defendants
have uniformly failed to pay the Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees proper overtime wages due the fact that they improperly
calculate the regular rate of pay, and willfully turns a blind eye
to off-the-clock work that the Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees perform as a direct consequence of the Defendants'
understaffing and imposition of an unreasonable workload, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants and assigned at the
Defendants' customers locations.

DMS provides janitorial services for its clients with regard to
short- and long-term janitorial needs. DMS is a private, for-profit
staffing business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT ERNEST WHEELER
          250 West First Street, Suite 216
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Phone: (909) 621-4988
          Facsimile: (909) 621-4622
          Email: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Marcia Guzman, Esq.
          ATTORNEYS FOR WORKERS' RIGHTS
          340 S Lemon Avenue, Ste 1354
          Walnut, CA 91789
          General: (626) 427-7128
          Direct: (213)347-4529
          Facsimile: (213) 342-6329
          Email: marcia@attomeysforworkersrights.com

DRINK LMNT INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drink LMNT, Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Drink LMNT, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09063 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2022).

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

Drink LMNT -- https://drinklmnt.com/ -- produces a tasty
electrolyte drink mix to keep people in good shape and health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


E.I. DUPONT: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Baker Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court
order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the
lawsuit styled Michele Baker, et al., individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours
and Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00917, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated individuals against the Defendants for
negligent manufacturing processes that led to water contamination
in the Hoosick Falls area.

The complaint allege manufacturing processes at sites like the 14
McCaffrey Street plant resulted in perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) to
be discharged into the soil and the aquifer. That property is
located near three wells serving the village municipal water
system, which had a no-drink order on it for months. The factory
was owned by Dodge Industries, Oak Industries, Allied-Signal and
Furon before current owner Saint-Gobain acquired the factory around
1999. The companies used a PFOA solution in manufacturing stain
resistant fabric, film, tapes and foams. The suit alleges that
employees washed out trays and ovens used to apply and "bake" PFOA.
Water used to wash equipment was released into drains, leading the
chemical to be discharged into the soil and the aquifer.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for themselves and other
affected Hoosick-area residents. They seek an injunction to demand
both parties pay to remediate their properties and compensate
residents for medical and other expenses. The Plaintiffs also seek
the companies to fund a long-term biomonitoring study on health
effects.

On April 6, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on September 30, 2022.

The appellate case is captioned E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company
v. Baker, Case No. 22-2616, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on October 14, 2022. [BN]

Defendant-Petitioner E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY is
represented by:

            Scott A. Chesin, Esq.
            SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.
            1325 Avenue of the Americas
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (212) 779-6106

Plaintiffs-Respondents MICHELE BAKER, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            James Bilsborrow, Esq.
            WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
            700 Broadway
            New York, NY 10003
            Telephone: (212) 558-5500

                   - and -

            Hadley E. Lundback, Esq.
            FARACI LANGE, LLP
            28 East Main Street
            Rochester, NY 14614
            Telephone: (585) 325-5150

                   - and -

            Paul J. Pennock, Esq.
            MORGAN & MORGAN
            350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6705
            New York, NY 10118
            Telephone: (813) 225-6747

                   - and -

            John K. Powers, Esq.
            POWERS & SANTOLA, LLP
            39 North Pearl Street
            Albany, NY 12207
            Telephone: (518) 465-5995

                   - and -

            Esther Berezofsky, Esq.
            MOTLEY RICE LLC
            Woodland Falls Corporate Park
            210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
            Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
            Telephone: (856) 667-0500

                   - and -

            Eric T. Chaffin, Esq.
            CHAFFIN LUHANA LLP
            600 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
            New York, NY 10016
            Telephone: (347) 269-4521

                   - and -

            Gerald J. Williams, Esq.
            WILLIAMS CEDAR LLC
            One South Broad Street, Suite 1510
            Philadelphia, PA 19107
            Telephone: (215) 557-0099

                   - and -

            Robin Lynn Greenwald, Esq.
            WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
            700 Broadway
            New York, NY 10003
            Telephone: (212) 558-5500

ENVISION FEDERAL: Appeal Filed in Hall Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
An appeal has been filed in the Florida First District Court of
Appeal from a court ruling in Leon County in the lawsuit entitled
Jarkezzia D. Hall, Plaintiff, v. Envision Federal Credit Union,
Defendant, Case No. 2021-CA001912.

The case type is stated as Final Civil Other Notice.

The appellate case is captioned Jarkezzia D. Hall, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Envision Federal
Credit Union, Case No. 22-3280, filed on October 14, 2022. [BN]

FLAGSTAR BANK: Gardner Files Suit in S.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flagstar Bank, FSB.
The case is styled as Veronica Gardner, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, Case No.
4:22-cv-03657 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 21, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Civil
Miscellaneous Case.

Flagstar Bank -- https://www.flagstar.com/ -- offers a range of
banking and lending solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE
          c/o Caroline B. Giordano
          101 North Main Street, 7th Floor
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Phone: (734) 668-7732


FMR LLC: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMR (New York) LLC.
The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. FMR (New York) LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09113 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

FMR LLC -- https://fmrnyc.com/ -- doing business as Fidelity
Institutional Asset Management, operates as a financial services
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRAMEBRIDGE INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Framebridge, Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Framebridge, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09016 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2022).

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

Framebridge -- https://www.framebridge.com/ -- is a
direct-to-consumer startup company in the custom framing
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GAMESTOP INC: Pena Sues Over Unauthorized Interception of Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vicente Pena, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GAMESTOP, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01635-JLS-RBB (S.D.
Cal., Oct. 21, 2022), is brought for damages and injunctive relief
against the Defendant for violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and
the California Invasion of Privacy Act, in relation to the
unauthorized interception, collection, recording, and dissemination
of Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications and data.

The Defendant secretly makes transcripts of the chats then shares
the transcript with third parties without the knowledge or consent
of the Plaintiff. The Defendant utilized software to intercept,
record and disseminate the Plaintiff's electronic communications.
The Defendant intentionally tapped and made unauthorized
interceptions and connections to the Plaintiff electronic
communications in order to create transcripts that could be shared
with third parties to analyze to extract key words for marketing
and other purposes. The Defendant made these unauthorized
interceptions and connections without the knowledge or consent of
the Plaintiff. The Defendant illegally tapped, made an unauthorized
connection to, and intercepted the Plaintiff's electronic
communications causing injuries, including violations of the
Plaintiff's substantive legal privacy rights under the Wiretap Act
and CIPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff used the web chat feature to communicate with the
Defendant for various reasons such as questions about products,
order issues, help with the site, etc.

The Defendant owns and operates the following website:
www.GameStop.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: 619-222-7429
          Email: DanielSh'ay@TCPAFDCPA.com


GERBER PRODUCTS: Bid to Dismiss Baby Food Heavy Metals Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, grants Gerber's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Representative Class Action Complaint
in the lawsuit styled IN RE: GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY HEAVY METALS
BABY FOOD LITIGATION, Class Action Master No. 1:21-cv-269 (MSN/JFA)
(E.D. Va.).

On Feb. 4, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on
Economic and Consumer Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform,
released a report titled "Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous
Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury," finding measurable
levels of these heavy metals (hereinafter "Heavy Metals") in baby
food products sold by Gerber. According to the Plaintiffs, the
report criticized Gerber for not testing all ingredients and
finished products for Heavy Metals, and for rarely testing for
mercury in its baby foods.

The Subcommittee released a supplemental report on Sept. 29, 2021,
largely based on testing done by the State of Alaska's Department
of Environmental Health Laboratory. Relying on the Subcommittee's
February 2021 and September 2021 Reports (together the
"Congressional Reports"), the Plaintiffs filed the Representative
Complaint on June 3, 2022, alleging that the following products
sold by Gerber (referred to as "Baby Food Product(s)") contained
harmful Heavy Metals at levels above what is considered safe for
babies: Gerber Puffs (all flavors); Gerber Lil' Crunchies (all
flavors); Gerber Yogurt Melts (all flavors); Gerber 1st Foods (all
flavors); Gerber 2nd Foods (all flavors); Gerber Cereals (all
types); Gerber Juices (all flavors); Gerber Arrowroot Biscuits;
Gerber Teether Wheels (all flavors); Gerber Yogurt Blends (all
flavors); Gerber Fruit & Veggie Melts (all types and flavors);
Gerber Graduates Mealtime for Toddler (all flavors); and Gerber
Diced Carrots Veggie Pick-Ups.

The Plaintiffs allege the amount of Heavy Metals in the Baby Food
Products was harmful to their children. In support, the Plaintiffs
rely on standards set by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"),
World Health Organization, Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"),
the Congressional Reports, and on reports authored by industry
groups.

The Plaintiffs allege the Baby Food Products contain materially
misleading statements or omissions because Gerber failed to
disclose on its packaging that (1) the Gerber Baby Food Products
contain or were at material risk of containing harmful Heavy
Metals; (2) Gerber inadequately tested, or never tested, for all
Heavy Metals in all the ingredients it uses and/or its finished
products; and that (3) when Gerber does set internal standards,
they allow for the sale of Baby Food Products with Heavy Metals in
amounts that could cause harm to babies and children and at times,
the Baby Food Products have failed to meet even those internal
standards.

Had Gerber disclosed the foregoing material facts, the Plaintiffs
claim they "would have sought alternative options and would not
have purchased the Gerber Baby Food Products." Further, the
Plaintiffs allege they were injured because they "did not receive
the benefit of their bargain and thus overpaid for" the Baby Food
Products. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and
monetary damages for the Defendant's alleged material omissions.

The Plaintiffs collectively assert thirteen causes of action in
their Representative Complaint: Count I: breach of implied
warranty; Count II: fraudulent concealment -- fraud by omission;
Count III: quasi contract/unjust enrichment; Count IV: violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; Count V: violations of
California's False Advertising Law; Count VI: violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law; Count VII: violation of the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; Count VIII: violation of
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; Count IX:
violation of Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act; Count X: violation of New York's Deceptive Acts and
Practices Act; Count XI: violation of New York's False Advertising
Act; Count XII: violation of Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Act; and Count XIII: violations of Virginia's
Consumer Protection Act.

On July 8, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims on several grounds, two of which are the focus
of the Court's analysis: (1) the Plaintiffs fail to state a
plausible claim that they suffered an economic injury and that they
are entitled to injunctive relief, and (2) the FDA should determine
what foods are unsafe under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs assert they paid for safe and
healthy food for their children and apparently received just
that--the benefit of their bargain. Accepting the pleadings as
alleged, Judge Nachmanoff notes that the Plaintiffs' only complaint
is that the Baby Food Products' levels of Heavy Metals are
unsatisfactory to them, citing Koronthaly v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., No.
07-cv-5588, 2008 WL 2938045, at *5 (D.N.J. July 2, 2008), aff'd,
374 F. App'x 257 (3d Cir. 2010).

Without more, such an assertion does not amount to a concrete and
particularized injury, Judge Nachmanoff holds. As such, the Court
finds that the Plaintiffs' benefit of the bargain theory of
economic harm is insufficient to establish an injury in fact for
the purposes of Article III standing.

The Court also finds the Plaintiffs fail to plead an economic
injury under either a benefit of the bargain or price premium
theory; therefore, they lack standing to pursue monetary damages
for their alleged claims.

In addition to monetary damages, the Plaintiffs seek an order
enjoining the Defendant from selling the Baby Food Products.
Because they have not alleged a likelihood of continuing or future
harm, however, the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek this form of
equitable relief, Judge Nachmanoff holds.

When seeking prospective injunctive relief, the plaintiff must
prove the likelihood of future or continuing harm, Judge Nachmanoff
notes, citing Pungitore v. Barbera, 506 F. App'x 40, 41 (2d Cir.
2012). The Plaintiffs have not done so here, Judge Nachmanoff
finds. Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs failed to establish any
likelihood of future or continuing harm, injunctive relief is
inappropriate here.

The Defendant argues the FDA, not the Court through this class
action, should determine what amounts of Heavy Metals are safe.
Accordingly, the Defendant seeks dismissal of this case under the
primary jurisdiction doctrine pending the FDA's forthcoming
determination on these issues. The Plaintiffs argue primary
jurisdiction is not implicated because they do not allege the
Defendant's products are adulterated and do not seek to impose
labeling requirements, but instead allege violations of
consumer-protection laws related to deceptive marketing and
advertising. Further, the Plaintiffs argue, there are no
regulations on labeling Heavy Metals in baby foods, nor is there
any FDA ruling pending that would address it. For the reasons
stated, the Court finds the FDA has primary jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' claims.

The Plaintiffs argue that action levels are not determinations that
there are no health hazards or risks, and are not binding, but are
based on what is achievable (which is why they are not called safe
levels). They argue that levels of inorganic arsenic, for example,
below the FDA's action levels do not necessarily mean the product
is safe or poses no health risk. Therefore, Judge Nachmanoff says
the Plaintiffs implicitly argue FDA action levels on the Heavy
Metals have no bearing on the litigation.

The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. When any "poisonous or
deleterious substance added to any food" cannot be avoided, the FDA
is required to promulgate regulations limiting the quantity therein
or to the extent necessary for the protection of public health.

The Plaintiffs allege that the FDA's 100 ppb action level for
inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal is too high to adequately
protect infants and children and levels below the FDA's action
level are nonetheless harmful. Judge Nachmanoff says it is
important to note that the FDA's testing has shown there is no
immediate health risk to children from exposure to toxic elements
at the levels currently found in food. The Plaintiffs ask the Court
to substitute its judgment on what levels of Heavy Metals in baby
food are safe for the FDA's judgment. Judge Nachmanoff says this
type of scientific determination is particularly within the FDA's
discretion and expertise.

The Court is not aware that the parties have made any previous
application to the FDA on the issues before the Court. This weighs
against finding the FDA has primary jurisdiction. However,
considering the strength of the other factors, the Court finds the
FDA has primary jurisdiction to determine whether the amount of
Heavy Metals in the Baby Foods Products is harmful.

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case, it need not
determine whether a stay or dismissal with prejudice would best
provide the parties a reasonable opportunity to seek an
administrative ruling.

For the reasons stated, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Plaintiffs'
Representative Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Oct. 17, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p94yzhb from
Leagle.com.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Judge Dismisses Baby Food Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP disclosed the law firm reported on the April
25, 2022 dismissal by a New Jersey federal judge of a putative
class action lawsuit against baby food producer Sprout Foods, Inc.
after finding the alleged harm was "simply speculative" without the
reported levels of heavy metals in the baby food being linked to
any particular harm or risk to the plaintiffs. In contrast, on
January 10, 2022, a California federal judge refused to dismiss
similar claims against Plum Organics, finding the claims are not
preempted by federal law and that the suit plausibly alleges a
reasonable consumer could be induced to pay more by the alleged
omission of disclosures of potential toxins in the baby food.

On October 17, 2022, a Virginia federal judge followed the approach
in the Sprout Foods case, dismissing claims against Gerber Products
Co. by plaintiffs alleging economic harm from having purchased
Gerber baby food products that were overpriced because Gerber
failed to disclose the risk of containing harmful heavy metals on
its packaging, inadequately tested for heavy metals, and failed to
adhere to internal standards. The case was dismissed on grounds of
standing and federal preemption.

On the issue of standing, the court concluded the baby food
products were safe "as to" the plaintiffs, finding the complaint
discusses the dangers of heavy metal exposure to human health
generally but does not allege the baby food products were
adulterated, recalled, or the cause of any reported injuries, or
that their children are at imminent risk of developing any specific
ailment in the future because they consumed the baby food
products.

The court also ruled against the plaintiffs on an alternative
theory of economic injury based on allegations of having paid a
"price premium," finding the plaintiffs failed to allege any facts
substantiating their conclusory allegations that would permit the
court to determine the economic value of their alleged lost benefit
without resorting to mere conjecture; thus, finding the plaintiff
failed to demonstrate they did not get the benefit of their bargain
or did not receive the full value of their purchase, the court
found the plaintiffs lack standing.

The court also noted that the plaintiffs have not identified an
affirmative duty or legal obligation, under the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act or any other law, requiring the disclosure of the
presence of heavy metals in baby food products.

On federal preemption arguments, the court found that FDA has
primary jurisdiction to determine whether the amounts of heavy
metals in baby food products is harmful.

Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and report on
litigation involving heavy metals in baby food, as well as FDA's
regulatory activities following two congressional reports
(discussed here) that raised alarm regarding the levels of heavy
metals -- including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury --
reportedly found in baby foods. [GN]

GOODYEAR TIRE: Alves Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Company. The case is styled as Joe Alves, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-11820-IT (D. Mass., Oct. 24,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company --
https://corporate.goodyear.com/us/en.html -- is an American
multinational tire manufacturing company founded in 1898 by Frank
Seiberling and based in Akron, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOT ALL YOUR MARBLES: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Got All Your Marbles,
LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Got All Your Marbles, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-09164 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2022).

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

Got All Your Marbles, LLC -- https://www.gotallyourmarbles.com/ --
offers custom-designed lost wax cast & tumbled interchangeable
marble pendants, earrings & bracelets, including moldmaking &
assembly.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREEN DOT: Agrees to Settle Unsolicited Text Ads Suit for $3.3-M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Green Dot agreed to pay over $3.3
million to resolve claims it contacted consumers with unsolicited
text message advertisements.

The settlement benefits individuals who sent a "stop" message or
otherwise opted out of receiving telemarketing text messages from
Green Dot since April 20, 2017, but received one or more text
messages regardless.

Green Dot is a banking company that offers checking, savings and
other banking services. According to the company's website, Green
Dot has managed 67 million accounts to date from over 90,000 retail
distribution locations.

According to a class action lawsuit, Green Dot illegally contacted
consumers with text message ads despite explicit opt-out requests.

The plaintiff in the case says he received numerous text messages
from Green Dot despite not having an account with the banking
company. He allegedly contacted customer service and told them he
should no longer be contacted. Despite this explicit request to opt
out of text messages, Green Dot allegedly continued to contact the
plaintiff with telemarketing messages.

"Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff harm,
including invasion of privacy, aggravation, and annoyance," the
Green Dot spam text message class action lawsuit contends.

"Defendant's call also inconvenienced Plaintiff, caused disruptions
to Plaintiff's daily life, caused Plaintiff to waste time dealing
with Defendant's unsolicited text message calls, used Plaintiff's
phone's storage, and depleted Plaintiff's phone's battery."

The telemarketing class action lawsuit claims that these texts
violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA),
which requires companies to receive express written consent before
contacting customers with telemarketing calls, texts and faxes.

Green Dot hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $3.36
million to resolve these allegations.

Under the terms of the Green Dot text message settlement, class
members can receive a cash payment of $48. All class members will
receive an equal share of the net settlement fund, regardless of
how many text messages they received. If the net settlement fund is
not sufficient to provide $48 to each claimant, payments may be
reduced.

Any money that remains unclaimed after payments are distributed
will revert back to Green Dot.

The deadline for exclusion and objection was Sept. 26, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the Green Dot text message
settlement is scheduled for Oct. 25, 2022.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Nov. 9, 2022.

Who's Eligible
Individuals who sent a "stop" message or otherwise opted out of
receiving telemarketing text messages from Green Dot since
April 20, 2017, but received one or more text messages regardless.

Potential Award
$48

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase applicable

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
11/09/2022

Case Name
Boardman v. Green Dot Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-1774, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina

Final Hearing
10/25/2022

Settlement Website
GreenDotSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Green Dot Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 8060
San Rafael, CA 94912-8060
info@greendotsettlement.com
844-494-0391

Class Counsel
Manuel S Hiraldo
HIRALDO PA

Defense Counsel
Whitney Smith
KELLE DRYE & WARREN LLP [GN]

GREEN SHEEP INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Sheep, Inc. The
case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Green Sheep, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09117 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

Green Sheep -- https://drinkopenwater.com/ -- is a bottled water
company focused on fighting ocean plastic pollution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


HAZELNUT PRODUCTIONS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hazelnut Productions,
Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Hazelnut Productions, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-09123 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

Hazelnut Productions, Inc. doing business as Ferrero Hazelnut
Company -- https://www.ferrerohazelnutcompany.com/int/en/ -- is
involved in every aspect of the hazelnut value chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HELEN OF TROY: Rowland Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cara Rowland, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HELEN OF TROY LTD. also known as:
HELEN OF TROY L.P., Case No. GD 22-011653 was removed from the
Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 25, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01495-PLD to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.

Helen of Troy Limited -- https://www.helenoftroy.com/ -- is an
American publicly traded designer, developer and worldwide marketer
of consumer brand-name housewares, health and home, and beauty
products under owned and licensed brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: ekilpela@lcllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Mahony Taylor, Jr., Esq.
          Kyle T. McGee, Esq.
          MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
          535 Smithfield Street, Ste. 1100
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 355-4957
          Fax: (412) 642-2380
          Email: dtaylor@margolisedelstein.com
                 kmcgee@margolisedelstein.com


HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Raneesha Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA,
LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-03716-MGL (D.S.C., Oct. 25, 2022), is brought
to recover these unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by
Honda to himself and Honda's other non-overtime-exempt workers, who
were the ultimate victims of not just the Kronos outage, but
Honda's decision to make its own non-exempt employees workers bear
the economic burden for the outage in violation the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Like many other companies across the United States, Honda
Kronos-based timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by a
service outage in beginning in December 2021. That outage led to
problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Honda's
organization. As a result, Honda's workers who were not exempt from
overtime under federal and state law were not paid for all overtime
hours worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium on
time, if at all, for all overtime hours worked during and after the
Kronos outage.

Honda could have easily implemented a system to accurately record
time and properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried employees
until issues related to the outage were resolved. Instead, Honda
pushed the cost of the Kronos outage onto the most economically
vulnerable people in its workforce. Honda made the economic burden
of the Kronos outage fall on front-line workers--average
Americans--who rely on the full and timely payment of their wages
to make ends meet. Honda's failure to pay wages, including proper
overtime, on time and in full for all hours worked violates the
FLSA. Honda's failure to pay wages, including proper overtime, for
all hours worked to its workers in South Carolina also violates the
SCPWA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has worked for Honda since June 2021.

Honda manufactures and distributes automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph S. Sandefur, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          11915 Plaza Dr., Ste. 301
          Post Office Box 3530
          Murrells Inlet, SC 29576
          Phone: (843) 973-5196
          Fax: (843) 973-5221
          Email: jsandefur@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Phone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Phone 713 999 5228
          Email: matt@parmet.law


HOSPITALITY KANSAS: Steck Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Steck, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. HOSPITALITY KANSAS CITY, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02427-EFM-ADM (D.
Kan., Oct. 20, 2022), is brought against Defendant for unpaid
minimum wage and overtime compensation, and related penalties and
damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant's policy and practice is to deny minimum wages and
overtime pay to servers working at its restaurant. Defendant's
failure to pay employees their earned wages and overtime
compensation violates the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a bartender for the Defendant.

Hospitality Kansas City, LLC operates restaurants that serves
alcohol and food to fans attending Sporting Kansas City events and
private events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
          3609 SW Pryor Rd.
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Phone: 816.600.0117
          Fax: 816.600.0137
          Email: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com


HUDSON GROUP: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hudson Group (HG)
Retail, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Hudson Group (HG)
Retail, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09165 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2022).

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

Hudson -- http://www.hudsongroup.com/-- is one of the largest
travel retailers in North America, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
international travel retailer Dufry AG of Basel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Fehrenbach Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai Motor
America, et al. The case is styled as Courtney Fehrenbach, Stacia
Salvaggio, David Salvaggio, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Hyundai Motor America, Kia America,
Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01922-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Hyundai Motor America -- https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en --
manufactures and retails automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
          6057 Metropolitan Plaza
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Phone: (314) 662-2836
          Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com

               - and -

          Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq.
          CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL LLC
          308 Hutchinson Road
          Ellisville, MO 63011-2029
          Phone: (314) 541-0317
          Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com


INFORMED DATA SYSTEMS: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Informed Data Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Zarzuela, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Informed Data Systems
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09023 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2022).

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

Informed Data Systems Inc., doing business as One Drop --
https://onedrop.today/ -- designs and develops health care
software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


INJURED WORKERS: Massachusetts Court Allows Bid to Toss Webb Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts allows the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit captioned ALEXSIS WEBB and MARSCLETTE CHARLEY, and ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. INJURED WORKERS PHARMACY, LLC, Case
No. 22-10797-RGS (D. Mass.).

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Injured
Workers Pharmacy (IWP) for alleged injuries arising out of a data
breach that compromised the personally identifiable information
(PII) of over 75,700 customers.

In May 2021, IWP, a pharmaceutical home delivery service discovered
a data breach occurring earlier in January of sensitive personal
records in its custody. IWP did not begin notifying affected
customers until February of 2022. The breached data consisted of
PII, including customers' names and Social Security numbers. The
data of both named Plaintiffs, a current and former IWP customer,
were compromised by the breach.

Following the breach, Webb and Charley allege they experienced
"anxiety, sleep disruption, stress, and fear" (with Charley adding
rage, anger, and physical pain) and were forced to spend
"considerable time and effort" monitoring their accounts. Webb also
alleges that she spent hours dealing with the IRS with regard to a
2021 tax return made by an unauthorized third party. Both
Plaintiffs allege they suffered actual injury in the form of
"damages to and diminution in the value of their PII" which they
estimate to be worth at least $1,000 on the dark web.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint consists of six counts: negligence (Count
I); negligence per se (Count II); breach of implied contract (Count
III); unjust enrichment (Count IV); invasion of privacy (Count V);
and breach of fiduciary duty (Count VI).

IWP moves to dismiss all claims for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).

Judge Stearns notes that an "injury in fact" must be (1) concrete
and particularized; and (2) actual or imminent. In other words, the
plaintiff must have personally suffered some identifiable harm that
has either happened or is likely to occur.

The Complaint does not sufficiently allege that the breach caused
any identifiable harm, Judge Stearns holds. It is only alleged that
Webb and Charley spent "considerable time and effort" monitoring
their accounts and, in Webb's case, dealing with the IRS.

Judge Stearns opines that the Plaintiffs "cannot manufacture
standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on
hypothetical future harm," citing Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568
U.S. 398, 416 (2013). The Complaint alleges neither monetary loss,
the misuse of data, nor that a third party stole their PII. The
Plaintiffs' alleged injuries rest entirely on the future
possibility that an unauthorized third party will, at some
undetermined time, misuse their PII.

Based on the facts of the Complaint, Judge Stearns points out this
potential harm is not sufficiently threatening to establish an
"injury in fact."

The Plaintiffs do not allege concrete and particularized injuries
that are actual or imminent. Therefore, the Court lacks
jurisdiction to hear this case and it should be dismissed under
Rule 12(b)(1).

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Oct. 17,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3w8b5jbz from
Leagle.com.


JELLUM LAW: Kowouto Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Samuel Kowouto, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Jellum Law, P.A., was removed from the
Hennepin County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on Oct. 21, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-02655-WMW-LIB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is Consumer Credit for Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Jellum Law -- https://jellumlaw.com/ -- is a banking & business law
firm focused on banking law, commercial lending & litigation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan D. Peterson, Esq.
          PETERSON LEGAL, PLLC
          6600 France Avenue, Suite 602
          Edina, MN 55435
          Phone: (612) 367-6568
          Email: ryan@peterson.legal

               - and -

          Thomas J Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Phone: 651) 770-9707
          Fax: (651) 704-0907
          Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael A. Klutho, Esq.
          Patrick D. Newman, Esq.
          BASSFORD REMELE
          100 South 5th Street, Ste. 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1254
          Phone: (612) 376-1619
          Fax: (612) 333-8829
          Email: mklutho@bassford.com
                 pnewman@bassford.com


JGR SERVICES: Lopez Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JGR SERVICES INC., CUETES CORP., JUAN MARTINEZ AND
BEATRIZ VARGAS, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 7:22-cv-09155 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 25, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, as recently amended by the Wage Theft
Prevention Act, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York
Codes, Rules and Regulations to recover overtime compensation for
the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff regularly work for the Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without receiving appropriate overtime compensation
for any of the hours that he worked. The Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping as required by the FLSA and the
NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants who was
employed as a construction worker.

JGR SERVICES INC. and CUETES CORP. are corporations organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          42 Broadway, 12t Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 203-2417
          Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Defective Pelvic Mesh Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Khulekani Magubane, writing for news24, reports that law firms RH
Lawyers and attorney Richard Spoor have initiated a class action
lawsuit in the South High Court in Johannesburg against Johnson &
Johnson, Ethicon, Coloplast, and Nuangle over pelvic mesh devices
that they contend were defective and caused injuries.

The pelvic mesh devices in question are surgically implanted into
the vaginal or pelvic region for the treatment of pelvic organ
prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

The matter between the firms and the companies has been on the
table since at least 2021, but RH Lawyers and Spoor said in a
statement on Oct. 19 that they were ready to pursue the class
action suit.

Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson have already been ordered to pay $1.7
million (R31 million) to three women in Australia after a court in
that country determined that the companies misled patients and
surgeons about the risks of using the devices. Supporting
affidavits from nine women were also provided to the court. A full
bench of the Australian High Court dismissed the companies'
appeal.

In a statement, RH Lawyers and Spoor announced that the class
action intends to seek compensation for South African women that
had "defective" pelvic mesh devices implanted and suffered harm as
a result.

"The pelvic mesh devices that are surgically implanted to treat the
abovementioned conditions, are made in whole or in part from
polypropylene and are intended to be implanted permanently. The
mesh is porous and is designed in a way so that the patient's
tissue grows through the pores and effectively fuses the mesh to
the patient's body," the statement said.

The two firms said polypropylene is not a suitable material for
implants of this nature, since several scientific studies have
shown that polypropylene degrades when implanted into the human
body. This could result in degradation, the pelvic mesh device
hardening, and becoming deformed.

"This can result in various complications such as cutting into the
tissue, chronic inflammatory responses, excessive scar tissue
build-up, and mesh perforating tissue or eroding through the pelvic
wall," the statement said.

The statement said the parties would wait for the court to grant
the applicants permission to pursue a class action on behalf of
those affected.

The statement said applicants in the class action alleged that the
pelvic mesh devices were defective, in that they did not fit, and
resulted in the class members suffering bodily injuries.

"The applicants further allege that the respondents knew or ought
reasonably to have known of the defects associated with the pelvic
mesh device and to have taken appropriate steps to prevent the
class members from suffering harm.

"Should the application for certification be granted by the court,
the applicants will proceed to trial for determination on two
aspects. Firstly, to determine the liability of the respondents;
and secondly, to assess the quantum of damages payable to each
class member."

Spokesperson for Coloplast Peter Mønster said: "We do not comment
on specific lawsuits. Our purpose at Coloplast is to make life
easier for people with intimate healthcare needs."

"We are committed to the women's health business and believe our
mesh products improve lives and are a safe and valuable option for
surgeons who treat women with pelvic organ prolapse and stress
urinary incontinence," Mønster said.

News24 sent queries to Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson, Nuangle as well
as Coloplast. Their comments will be added to the article once
received. [GN]

LAKE CITY: Bid to Certify Class in McAllister FDCPA Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELINDA McALLISTER, On Behalf of Herself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. LAKE CITY CREDIT, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:22-CV-41-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss.), Judge
Sharion Aycock of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Mississippi, Aberdeen Division, grants McAllister's Motion to
Certify Class filed on May 19, 2022.

On March 8, 2022, McAllister, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, initiated the action by filing her Class Action
Complaint against Lake City Credit. The civil action arises from
purported violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").

According to McAllister's Class Action Complaint, Lake City Credit
is a "debt collector" as that term is defined by the FDCPA. She
contends that Lake City Credit purchased debt from an entity named
Fingerhut. She allegedly owed Fingerhut an outstanding balance on
an account that was supposedly active from 2008 through 2015.
McAllister disputed owing such balance as she never opened said
account with Fingerhut.

Ms. McAllister contends that Lake City Credit then began sending
her letters which ran afoul of the FDCPA. She attached to her
Complaint two letters, which were dated Nov. 29, 2021 and Dec. 28,
2021 respectively. McAllister alleges that to prevent the debt
collector from assuming a debt is valid, the FDCPA only requires
the consumer to dispute the debt -- orally or in writing. However,
the Defendant's use of its aforesaid form letters eliminates the
consumer's statutory right to dispute the debt orally or in
writing.

As these allegations make clear, McAllister's contention is that
Lake City Credit's form letters, which are sent to consumers across
the State, fail to comply with the FDCPA's notice requirement.
After initiating the lawsuit, McAllister filed a Proof of Service
indicating that she had completed service of process on Lake City
Credit by serving Corporation Service Co. (Lake City Credit's
registered agent) on March 16, 2022. When Lake City Credit failed
to file an answer or otherwise respond within the allotted time,
McAllister filed a Motion for Entry of Default on April 11, 2022.
The Clerk of Court entered default against Lake City Credit the
next day. McAllister then filed the present Motion requesting class
certification.

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs class
actions. To obtain class certification, parties must satisfy Rule
23(a)'s four threshold requirements, as well as the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3). The Rule 23(a) requirements are: (1)
the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

Ms. McAllister's proposed class, includes "(i) all persons with
addresses within the state of Mississippi (ii) who were sent a
letter from defendant in the form of [the attached letters] or
similar thereto with Notice violations under the FDCPA as alleged
herein to recover a debt allegedly owed which was not returned
undeliverable by the United States Postal Service during the period
of time one-year prior to the filing of this Complaint through 21
days after the filing of this Class Action Complaint."

Judge Aycock finds that each of Rule 23(a) prerequisites to class
certification are satisfied.

In addition to Rule 23(a)'s four requirements, McAllister must also
satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3). McAllister
contends that Rule 23(b)(3) is applicable. That Rule provides a
class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if
the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Ultimately, considering the nature of the claims at issue, Judge
Aycock finds that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating these claims.
Hence, Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied.

In her Motion, McAllister requests that the Court "directs notice
to the class." However, she does not address notice whatsoever in
her supporting Memorandum. Because McAllister did not address in
detail the type of notice which she believes is appropriate in this
case, Judge Aycock will not decide that issue at this time.
Instead, she directs McAllister to file a separate Memorandum
regarding notice and, more particularly, the type of notice she
contends is appropriate under the circumstances.

For these reasons, McAllister's Motion is granted. McAllister's
counsel, W. Howard Gunn, Esq., is appointed as the class counsel.
The Court will take up the notice issue after McAllister makes a
separate filing regarding the same.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9bmn6h from Leagle.com.


LEKKER! INC: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lekker!, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Zarzuela, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lekker!, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09142
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2022).

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

Lekker Home -- https://lekkerhome.com/ -- specializes in the sale
of unique & upscale home decor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Brown Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
TWANDA MARSHINDA BROWN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Twanda Marshinda Brown, et
al., Plaintiffs v. Lexington County, South Carolina, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01426-SAL, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
initiated the action in 2017 on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated after they were separately arrested and
incarcerated for a period of time ranging from seven to 63 days for
failure to pay magistrate court fees and fines.

The Plaintiffs allege that indigent people who lack the financial
means to pay the full amount of fines and fees owed to Lexington
County magistrate courts are routinely arrested and incarcerated
for weeks and months at a time without being afforded a
pre-deprivation ability-to-pay hearing, notice of the right to
request counsel, or the assistance of a court-appointed attorney to
help defend against incarceration.

On October 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint asserts eight causes of
action.

On April 11, 2022, the Defendants and Plaintiffs filed their
motions for summary judgment.

On August 22, 2022, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

On September 20, 2022, the Court entered judgment dismissing the
case with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned Twanda Brown v. Gary Reinhart, Case
No. 22-7184, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, filed on October 13, 2022. [BN]

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

            David Allen Chaney, Jr., Esq.
            ACLU OF SOUTH CAROLINA
            P.O. Box 1668
            Columbia, SC 29202
            Telephone: (859) 653-4934

                   - and -

            Toby James Marshall, Esq.
            Eric Riley Nusser, Esq.
            TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
            936 North 34th Street
            Seattle, WA 98103
            Telephone: (206) 816-6603

Defendants-Appellees GARY REINHART, et al., are represented by:

            William Henry Davidson, II, Esq.
            Kenneth Paul Woodington, Esq.
            DAVIDSON, WREN & DEMASTERS
            P.O. Box 8568
            Columbia, SC 29202
            Telephone: (803) 806-8222

LINCARE INC: B.B. Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as B.B., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lincare Inc., Case No. 2216-CV16343 was
removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Oct. 20,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00670-FJG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is Other Contract for Contract Dispute.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          Lucy McShane, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY LLC
          1656 Washington Street, Suite 140
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 888-8010
          Fax: (816) 332-6295
          Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
                 lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brisa Ileana Izaguirre Wolfe, Esq.
          Amy D. Fitts, Esq.
          POLSINELLI - KCMO
          900 W. 48th Place
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 218-1208
          Fax: (816) 753-1536
          Email: bwolfe@polsinelli.com
                 afitts@polsinelli.com


LIQUID-IV INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liquid-IV, Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Liquid-IV, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09062 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2022).

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

Liquid I.V. -- https://www.liquid-iv.com/ -- is a health-science
nutrition and wellness company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LM GENERAL: Baskerville Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Warren Baskerville, individually and on their
own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
v. LM General Insurance Company doing business as: Liberty Mutual,
Case No. 220900751 was removed from Philadelphia, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 24,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04254-CFK to the
proceeding.

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

LM General Insurance Company doing business as Liberty Mutual --
http://www.libertymutualgroup.com/-- operates as an insurance
company. The Company provides insurance services for auto, boats,
equipment breakdowns, inland marine, bonds, property, and
home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Haggerty, Esq.
          HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER, & KUPERSMITH
          1801 Market Street, Suite 100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 350-6633
          Email: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com

               - and -

          John P. Goodrich, Esq.
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 261-4663

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Highway, Second Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 772-7200
          Email: ecf@shublawyers.com

               - and -

          Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
          SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
          209 State Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Phone: (717) 232-6300
          Email: scooper@schmidtkramer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brigid Quinn Alford, Esq.
          MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER. COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201
          Camp Hill, PA 17011
          Phone: (717) 651-3710
          Fax: (717) 651-3707
          Email: bqalford@mdwcg.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Pimentel Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS PIMENTEL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their claims in the lawsuit entitled Jesus Pimentel, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. City of Los Angeles, Defendant, Case No.
2:14-cv-01371-FMO-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that a $63 fine Los Angeles imposes for an expired parking
meter, and its doubling if not paid in two weeks -- not to mention
the $28 "delinquent" fee and the $21 "collection fee" -- are so
excessive they are unconstitutional.

Lead Plaintiff Jesus Pimentel claims that the $175 he had to pay
was an unconstitutional "excessive fine," and that the California
Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) threat to withhold registration
of his car and/or boot or seize it if he didn't pay the $175 --
accompanied by the threat of civil litigation, reporting him to a
credit bureau and garnishing of his state tax refund -- violated
the Due Process clause.

On October 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint against the Defendant.

On September 28, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment as to the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

On September 13, 2022, the Court granted the Defendant's motion and
dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice through an Order
entered by Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

The appellate case is captioned Jesus Pimentel, et al. v. City of
Los Angeles, Case No. 22-55946, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 13, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Jacklyn Baird, Rafael Buelna, Wendy Cooper, Edward
Lee, Jeffrey O'Connell, Jesus Pimentel and David R. Welch Mediation
Questionnaire was due on October 20, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on December 12, 2022;

   -- Appellants Jacklyn Baird, Rafael Buelna, Wendy Cooper, Edward
Lee, Jeffrey O'Connell, Jesus Pimentel and David R. Welch opening
brief is due on January 20, 2023.

   -- Appellee City of Los Angeles answering brief is due on
February 21, 2023; and

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

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

            Donald R. Pepperman, Esq.
            WAYMAKER, LLP
            515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3500
            Los Angeles, CA 90071
            Telephone: (424) 652-7800

                   - and -

            Donald Norris, Esq.
            DONALD G. NORRIS, A LAW CORPORATION
            500 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 716
            Los Angeles, CA 90071
            Telephone: (213) 232-0855

Defendant-Appellee CITY OF LOS ANGELES is represented by:

            Arlene Nancy Hoang, Esq.
            OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY
            200 N. Spring Street
            Los Angeles, CA 90012
            Telephone: (213) 978-7508

                   - and -

            Gabriel Dermer, Esq.
            LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
            200 N. Main Street
            Los Angeles, CA 90012
            Telephone: (213) 978-7558

LOVEDBABY LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lovedbaby, LLC. The
case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Lovedbaby, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09068
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

L'ovedbaby LLC -- https://www.lovedbaby.com/ -- is an apparel &
accessories, and retail company located in Canoga Park,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOVISA AMERICA: Sued Over Wiretapping of Private Conversations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LOVISA AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
1:22-cv-01356-EPG (E.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2022), is brought against
the Defendant for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act as a result of the Defendant who secretly wiretaps the private
conversations on its Website without warning visitors or obtaining
their consent.

The Defendant secretly wiretaps the private conversations of
everyone who communicates through the chat feature at
www.lovisa.com (the "Website"); and allows at least one third party
to eavesdrop on such communications in real time to harvest data
for financial gain. The Defendant does not obtain visitors' consent
to either the wiretapping or the eavesdropping. As a result, the
Defendant has violated the CIPA in numerous ways. The Defendant's
wiretapping and eavesdropping are not incidental to the act of
facilitating e-commerce, nor are they undertaken in the ordinary
course of business. To the contrary, the Defendant's actions
violate both industry norms and the legitimate
expectations of consumers.

To enable the wiretapping, Defendant has covertly embedded code
into its chat feature that automatically records and creates
transcripts of all such conversations. To enable the eavesdropping,
the Defendant allows at least one independent third-party vendor
(on information and belief, Zendesk Zopim) to secretly intercept
(during transmission and in real time), eavesdrop upon, and store
transcripts of the Defendant's chat communications with
unsuspecting website visitors--even when such conversations are
private and deeply personal. The Defendant neither informed
visitors of this conduct nor obtained their consent to these
intrusions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of California.

The Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company that owns,
operates, and/or controls the www.lovisa.com website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          A Professional Corporation
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


MADDEN CORPORATION: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Madden
Corporation. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Madden
Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-09094 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

The Madden Corporation -- https://www.welcometotheislands.com/ --
is a Hawai'i-based parent company for the wholesale divisions of
Island Heritage, Island Plantations, Island Bath & Body, Kai
Clothing, Mauna Kai and Island Heritage Music.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAISIE JANES: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maisie Janes
California Sunshine Products, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar
Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Maisie Janes California Sunshine Products, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09071 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

Maisie Janes California Sunshine Products, Inc. --
https://www.maisiejanes.com/ -- is a family owned company that was
founded on strong beliefs and passion for offering locally grown
nuts and gift products from Northern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAJOR LEAGUE: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
Major League Baseball cooperative that runs MLB.com has become the
latest pro sport online video site to be hit with a class action
lawsuit under a federal privacy law, which accuses MLB.com and
other properties operated by MLB Advanced Media of wrongly sharing
information with Facebook about the video viewing habits of
American subscribers.

On Oct. 21, attorneys with the firms of Stephan Zouras, of Chicago,
and Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise, of Chicago, filed suit in
Chicago federal court against MLB Advanced Media.

The attorneys filed suit on behalf of named plaintiff James Hayes,
identified as an Illinois resident who has used MLB.com since 2017
and has subscribed to the service.

MLB Advanced Media is a partnership of the owners of all MLB teams.
It operates the MLB.com property, which provides users with access
to tickets, as well as news, real-time in-game updates, statistics,
schedules and other information, as well as radio and television
broadcasts and highlights for most games.

MLB Advanced Media also employs a network of reporters to bring
subscribers information about the teams. The cooperative also runs
the official sites for Minor League Baseball and the websites for
the television networks for the New York Mets and New York
Yankees.

As recently as 2012, MLB Advanced Media brought in more than $600
million per year, according to a report published by Fast Company.

The lawsuit seeks to expand the action to include potentially
millions of others who hold subscriptions or have accessed video
content on MLB.com or other properties operated by MLB Advanced
Media.

The lawsuit is essentially similar to others filed against other
online entertainment providers. Last month, for instance, lawyers
from the Peiffer Wolf firm also filed similar class actions against
the NFL, Warner Bros. and Buzzfeed.

Just as with those other lawsuits, the class action against MLB
Advanced Media asserts the company shared user content viewing
history and habits with social media company Meta, through its
primary platform, Facebook.

The complaint asserts MLB.com, just as the other sites targeted by
the class actions, allows Facebook to track people's viewing habits
using its so-called Tracking Pixel. The complaint asserts the
tracking data provided to Facebook allows the social media company
to track users using their specific Facebook identifier.

Facebook then allegedly uses that information to allegedly round
out its collection of personalized data it holds on individual
Facebook account holders, without their knowledge or expressed
consent.

The lawsuit asserts the user tracking and data sharing violate the
federal Video Privacy Protection Act, which allegedly forbids video
service providers, like MLB.com, from sharing customers' viewing
history and habits with Facebook or others, without consent.

As with the other lawsuits, Facebook and Meta are not named as
defendants.

The lawsuit seeks damages of $2,500 per user, plus unspecified
punitive damages and attorney fees.

Attorneys representing Hayes and other plaintiffs in the action
against MLB Advanced Media include Ryan F. Stephan and James B.
Zouras, of the firm of Stephan Zouras, and Brandon M. Wise, of the
Peiffer Wolf firm. [GN]

MANHATTAN LUXURY: Appeals Court Ruling in Watson Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MANHATTAN LUXURY AUTOMOBILES, INC., doing business as Lexus of
Manhattan, is taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit
entitled Brian Watson, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles,
Inc., doing business as Lexus of Manhattan, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-04572-LGS-SLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The Plaintiffs brought this suit against Defendant Manhattan Luxury
Automobiles, Inc. for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") and regulations promulgated thereunder by
sending unsolicited text messages to consumers.

The Plaintiffs moved to certify three classes pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and to preclude testimony by the
Defendant's expert witness, Ken Sponsler. The Defendant also moved
to preclude testimony by the Plaintiffs' expert witnesses, Anya
Verkhovskaya and Randall Snyder.

On September 29, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs'
motion to preclude Sponsler's first and third opinions is granted.
The Defendant's motion to preclude Verkhovskaya's opinion is
denied, and its motion to preclude Snyder's opinion is denied
without prejudice to renewing arguments for precluding or
disregarding specific opinions at later stages of the case. The
Defendant's motion to strike certain statements from the
Plaintiffs' letter and the Plaintiffs' motion to strike certain of
the Defendant's exhibits were both denied as moot.

The appellate case is captioned Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc.
v. Watson, Case No. 22-2563, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on October 14, 2022. [BN]

Defendant-Petitioner Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc., doing
business as Lexus of Manhattan, is represented by:

            Salvatore Anthony Giampiccolo, Esq.
            STEVENS & LEE, P.C.
            669 River Drive
            Elmwood Park, NJ 07407
            Telephone: (201) 857-6767

                   - and -

            Jason M. Myers, Esq.
            LONDON FISCHER LLP
            59 Maiden Lane
            New York, NY 10038
            Telephone: (212) 331-9557

Plaintiffs-Respondents Brian Watson, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Daniel Zemel, Esq.
            ZEMEL LAW LLC
            660 Broadway
            Paterson, NJ 07514
            Telephone: (862) 227-3106

MARYLAND: District Court Refuses to Allow Ali to Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SEIFULLAH ALI, Plaintiff v. MARYLAND DIVISION
OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Case No. ELH-22-2374 (D. Md.),
Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the
District Maryland denies the Plaintiff's motion to amend
complaint.

On Sept. 27, 2022, the Court issued an Order directing the
self-represented Plaintiff, Seifullah Ali, who is incarcerated at
Roxbury Correctional Institution ("RCI"), to file an amended
complaint within 28 days.

In his initial Complaint, Ali alleged that while at Maryland
Correctional Institution-Jessup ("MCI-J"), he was denied access to
basic necessities, including his medication, which resulted in his
suffering a seizure after which he was left "in a prison cell
unconscious for two hours" before receiving medical assistance.

On Sept. 27, Ali was ordered to amend because, as pled, he had
failed to state a claim or name proper defendants. To date, Ali has
not filed an amended complaint as directed. He has, however, filed
two additional motions, which the Court will now address.

The first motion asks that this "case to be consolidated with case
No: 1:22-cv-02435-SAG and declared class action complaint." As to
the request to be declared a class action, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) delineates the prerequisites for a class action.

Judge Hollander holds that Ali's Complaint does not sufficiently
allege claims that require a class action. To the extent numerous
other individuals have claims regarding the conditions during
Covid-19 quarantines at MCI-J, those claims require proof from each
litigant "of a serious or significant physical or emotional injury
resulting from the challenged conditions," Judge Hollander opines,
citing Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1381 (4th Cir.1993).

Judge Hollander notes that the claims are highly individualized,
and without evidence that there is a policy in place that requires
blanket denial of necessities while in quarantine, a class action
is not the appropriate approach. Further, as Ali is pro se, he is
barred from instituting a class action whereby he would be
representing others. As such, Judge Hollander will deny Ali's
request to have this case declared a class action.

Similarly, Ali's request to consolidate his case with case number
SAG-22-2435 must also be denied, Judge Hollander holds. Both
complaints make similar allegations about denials of basic
necessities when the Plaintiffs were temporarily moved from Dorsey
Run to MCI-J during Covid-19 quarantines. But, Ali's Complaint goes
much further. Ali makes a very specific and serious claim that he
was denied his epilepsy medication when transferred, and as a
result, he suffered a seizure and was left on the cell floor for
two hours, without treatment.

This makes Ali's claims markedly different from the case with which
he seeks consolidation, Judge Hollander points out. Also, the
plaintiff in SAG-22-2435 did not join Ali's motion or file a motion
for consolidation, Judge Hollander says. Consolidation is
discretionary under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and for these reasons, the Court declines to exercise
that discretion. Ali's motion will be denied.

Finally, the Court will consider Ali's Motion to Amend. In this
Motion, Ali explains that he was recently moved to RCI. There, he
states that he is kept in his cell over 23 hours a day. He seeks to
name the RCI Warden, Carlos Bivens, and "Assistant Warden Hull," as
defendants.

Judge Hollander notes that this proposed amendment is wholly
unrelated to Ali's original Complaint about conditions and
treatment at MCI-J. It involves different facts, defendants,
correctional institutions, and allegations. As such, the Court
finds that the proposed amendment is not appropriate, and Ali's
motion is denied.

Judge Hollander reminds Ali, however, that he can file a separate
action making these allegations if he so chooses. In doing so, Ali
should be mindful to name defendants, who were personally involved
in the constitutional violations he alleges, provide details
regarding how each defendant was engaged in the complained of
conduct, and detail what injury, if any, he suffered as a result.

Moreover, Ali is reminded that he must comply with the Court's
Order of Sept. 27, 2022. For his convenience, Judge Hollander will
direct the Clerk to provide another copy of it. Judge Hollander
will also extend his due date to Nov. 7, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Oct. 17, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/26fx6srb from Leagle.com.


MDL 2879: Special Master Wants Discovery to Proceed in Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Master John M. Facciola filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the parties be permitted to proceed with
discovery in the multidistrict litigation titled IN RE: MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, MDL No.
19-md-2879 (D. Md.).

Mr. Facciola states that the document relates to the consumer
track.

Despite Marriott's appeal of the presiding judge's certifying a
class of Plaintiffs in the Consumer Track, the Plaintiffs and
Marriott agreed to proceed with agreed upon discovery into
Marriott's providing information to an agency of the state of
California. Marriott provided this information to comply with the
requirements of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The
presiding judge, however, interdicted that discovery and demanded
that counsel address whether the Court had jurisdiction to permit
that discovery despite the pendency of the appeal.

The presiding judge reminded the parties that:

     The Fourth Circuit, however, follows the traditional rule
     that filing a notice of appeal divests the district court of
     jurisdiction except for matters that are collateral to the
     appeal or in aid of the appeal. See Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749
     F.3d 246, 258 (4th Cir. 2014); see also Amaya v. DGS
     Constr., LLC, No. TDC-16-3350, 2019 WL 1501584, at *1-3 (D.
     Md. January 28, 2019) (interpreting Pub. Citizen in context
     of Rule 23(f)).

Mr. Facciola notes that the Plaintiffs try to escape from the
principle that filing a notice of appeal divests the lower court of
its jurisdiction because the discovery will help the court of
appeals and is collateral to the issues presented on appeal.

Mr. Facciola says he finds the Plaintiffs' assertion that this
discovery will help the court of appeals unconvincing. How can the
court of appeals be helped in resolving the issues on appeal by the
discovery in this Court as to another possible basis for class
certification not addressed in the appeal?

The word "collateral" is, in his view, often pliable and malleable,
Mr. Facciola states. Fortunately, the Plaintiffs are more specific
about what they want to do with the CCPA discovery. They state that
the discovery may provide them with a basis to file an entirely new
motion for class certification that is not the subject of this
appeal concerning their valuation theory. Alternatively, the
Plaintiffs asserts the discovery may provide a basis to revisit the
Court's previous order denying class certification as to their
valuation theory.

Marriott answers that the Court presently lacks jurisdiction
because whether and to what extent the Plaintiffs may be entitled
to class certification (either by filing a new motion or revisiting
the order on appeal) is an aspect of the case involved in the
appeal.

Specifically, Marriott's appellate briefing asks the Fourth Circuit
to resolve whether the Court erred by certifying classes where
every class member waived the right to pursue class litigation. In
making this request, Marriott asks the Fourth Circuit not only to
vacate the district court's certification order but reverse and
conclude that the presence of the class waiver outright precludes
certification of the certified classes.

The aspect of the case on appeal is, thus, not limited to whether
the Court erred by deferring the class waiver question but extends
to whether class certification should have been granted at all
given the class action waiver, Mr. Facciola notes. After all,
resolving whether the waiver forecloses the certification of any of
the classes at issue here, necessarily requires the Fourth Circuit
to address and resolve the impact of the class waiver on the Rule
23 analysis.

Mr. Facciola notes, as well, that Marriott quotes a 4th Circuit
decision that specifically held that a district court may not
vacate or amend the order on appeal, citing Lewis v. Tobacco Int'l
Union, 577 F.2d 1135, 1139 (4th Cir. 10978).

"The jurisdiction questions are, therefore, complicated. But I see
no reason to reach them now," Mr. Facciola says.

First, Mr. Facciola says, he and the parties have no idea what
discovery will yield. If it comes to nothing and the Plaintiffs do
not file the motion, the jurisdictional problem disappears. Second,
they cannot assess whether the Court has jurisdiction accurately
until they see the motion. Right now, they are only theorizing what
the discovery may yield and what the Plaintiffs' motion will say.
It makes more sense to know exactly what they have and get the
parties' views as to jurisdiction after it is filed, Mr. Facciola
points out.

Mr. Facciola, therefore, recommends that the Court allow the
discovery but stop there. He does not think allowing the discovery
(to which Marriott agreed before the Court raised the
jurisdictional questions) raises any jurisdictional issues. There
is no risk, for example, of the Court and the court of appeals
considering the same issue simultaneously.

Mr. Facciola also recommends that he be permitted to proceed as
follows:

     I will first direct counsel to advise me when the discovery
     is completed. I will then order the plaintiffs to file
     whatever motion they are going to file by a date certain. At
     that point, the jurisdictional issues ripen. After I see
     what the plaintiffs have filed, I shall decide whether the
     briefing counsel have submitted on the jurisdictional issues
     suffices or I should order additional briefing.

Therefore, Mr. Facciola recommends that the parties be permitted to
proceed with the discovery and that he be given permission to
proceed thereafter as described.

A full-text copy of the Court's Report and Recommendation dated
Oct. 17, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yz9s3f2a from
Leagle.com.


MEADOWBROOK FINANCIAL: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meadowbrook Financial
Mortage Bankers Corp. The case is styled as Gerard Jackson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Meadowbrook Financial Mortage Bankers Corp., Case No.
4:22-cv-01659-MWB (M.D. Pa., Oct. 20, 2022).

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

Meadowbrook Mortgage Bankers -- https://mfmbankers.com/ -- is an
established Mortgage Banker with over 50 years of management
experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (508) 221-1510
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Bower, Esq.
          BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          403 South Allen Street, Suite 210
          State College, PA 16801
          Phone: (814) 234-2626
          Fax: (814) 237-8700
          Email: jbower@bower-law.com


META PLATFORMS: Logan Class Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DON RAMEY LOGAN, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-01847-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R.
Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants Meta's Motion to Dismiss Logan's First Amended
Complaint with leave to amend.

Mr. Logan initiated the suit as a putative class action against
Meta, asserting various copyright-related claims revolving around
Facebook's embedding tool. Logan's FAC sets forth three sets of
factual allegations.

First, Mr. Logan alleges that Facebook's embedding tool enables
third parties to infringe his copyrighted photos uploaded onto his
Facebook account by embedding them to third-party websites. Logan
argues that Meta, by providing the tool, is secondarily liable for
the infringement. Second, Logan alleges that Meta itself directly
infringed his photos by embedding them from other websites onto
Facebook and saving them on Facebook's servers. Third, Logan brings
claims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a), and the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), 17 U.S.C. Section 1202,
alleging that Meta removed his copyright information from his
photos and replaced it with information misrepresenting the photos
as its own.

Broadly, Mr. Logan alleges that Meta is liable for two types of
embedding activity: (1) third parties embedding content from
Facebook users' pages onto third-party websites, and (2) Meta
embedding content from other websites onto Facebook.

Mr. Logan is a California resident and Facebook user. He is also
the creator and copyright owner of various "high-quality
photographs" that depict scenic or landmark coastal areas around
the country. Meta is a Delaware company headquartered in Menlo
Park, California, and the parent company of Facebook, Inc. Facebook
"is a social media and social networking service company" that
operates through the Internet.

Mr. Logan filed the Complaint on Feb. 16, 2022, in the Southern
District of New York. On March 21, 2022, the parties stipulated to
transfer the action to this District. On March 24, 2022, the Clerk
of Court transferred the case to this District and assigned it to
Judge Gonzalez Rogers. On April 5, 2022, the Court ordered the case
related to Hunley v. Instagram, LLC, 3:21-cv-03778-CRB, and
reassigned the case to this Court.

On May 16, 2022, Logan filed the FAC. The FAC asserts the following
claims: (1) Lanham Act false advertising under 15 U.S.C. Section
1125(a); (2) direct copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. Section
106, et seq.; (3) inducement of copyright infringement; (4)
violation of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. Sections 1201-1205; (5)
contributory copyright infringement; and (6) vicarious copyright
infringement.

On July 27, 2022, Meta filed its Motion to Dismiss all of Logan's
claims without leave to amend. On Sept. 7, 2022, Logan opposed the
motion, and on Sept. 21, 2022, Meta filed its Reply.

Judge Breyer holds that because the FAC fails to plead that any
third party saved Logan's photos onto their servers, the FAC fails
to plead the underlying element of third-party direct infringement
for Logan's secondary liability claims. He therefore dismisses
Logan's inducement of copyright infringement, contributory
copyright infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement
claims.

Because Logan fails to plead the copyright registration of the
photos at issue, Judge Breyer dismisses his direct copyright
infringement claim. He also dismisses Logan's false advertising
claim, because Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent foreclose
repackaging his copyright claims under the Lanham Act.

Finally, Logan has failed to plead that Meta provided false
copyright management information ("CMI") in connection with his
photos, or that it knowingly removed his CMI. Accordingly, Judge
Breyer dismisses his DMCA claim.

But because amendment would not be futile, he grants with leave to
amend on all claims within 21 days of the Court's order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n7f38d6 from Leagle.com.


MOONLIGHT SLUMBER: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moonlight Slumber,
LLC. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Moonlight Slumber, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09102 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

Moonlight Slumber -- https://sleepmoonlight.com/ -- is a leading
mattress manufacturer offering safe, innovative sleep products
under its various brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW JERSEY: Carmona Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNICA CARMONA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Jennica Carmona, et al.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. New Jersey Department of Education, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2-21-cv-18746, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs, parents of 15 special needs children, initiated
this putative class action against the New Jersey Department of
Education ("NJDOE"), multiple public-school districts throughout
New Jersey (the "School District Defendants"), and the New Jersey
Commissioner of Education as well as the Superintendents of the
school districts (the "Individual Defendants"). The Plaintiffs
assert claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
("IDEA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Section 1983, the New Jersey
Administrative Code ("NJAC"), the New Jersey Special Education
Statute ("NJSA"), the New Jersey Civil Rights Act ("NJCRA"), the
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").

The Plaintiffs brought suit individually and on-behalf of 15
school-aged children, who are students in different school
districts throughout New Jersey. All have special needs and, all
but one, B.A., had an Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") for the
2019-20 and/or the 2020-21 school years. An IEP is the "primary
mechanism" to ensure that every disabled child receives a free
appropriate public education ("FAPE"), as required by the IDEA. An
IEP is a written document that sets forth the special education and
related services that must be provided to the child, to enable a
FAPE. Through their IEPs, all the named children in this matter,
except B.A., received some type of specialized support or
modifications at school during the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school
years.

On Feb. 5, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
contains nine counts. Count One alleges violations of the IDEA;
Count Two violations of the Rehabilitation Act; and Count Three
violations of the ADA. Counts Four and Five assert Section 1983
claims for deprivation of the Plaintiffs' equal protection and
substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Count Six alleges violations of the NJAC and NJSA; Count Seven
violations of the NJCRA; and Count Eight violations of the NJLAD.
Finally, Count Nine alleges RICO violations against the individual
Defendants.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge John
Michael Vazquez on August 23, 2022. The Court dismissed without
prejudice all counts for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
dismissed with prejudice all counts for failure to state a claim.
The Defendants' motion for sanctions was denied.

The appellate case is captioned Jennica Carmona, et al. v. New
Jersey Department of Education, et al., Case No. 22-2874, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on
October 12, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JENNICA CARMONA, et al., are represented by:

            Keri Avellini, Esq.
            Katherine E. McKay, Esq.
            BRAIN INJURY RIGHTS GROUP
            300 East 95th Street, Suite 130
            New York, NY 10128
            Telephone: (484) 340-7703

Defendants-Appellees NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.,
are represented by:

            Jaclyn M. Frey, Esq.
            OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
            25 Market Street
            Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
            Trenton, NJ 08625
            Telephone: (609) 376-3100

                   - and -

            Jeffrey P. Catalano, Esq.
            PARKER MCCAY
            9000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300
            Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
            Telephone: (856) 985-4091

                   - and -

            Brett E.J. Gorman, Esq.
            PARKER MCCAY
            9000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300
            Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
            Telephone: (856) 985-4051

                   - and -

            William C. Morlok, Esq.
            PARKER MCCAY
            9000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300
            Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
            Telephone: (856) 596-8900

                   - and -

            Megha Dharia, Esq.
            518 Liberty Avenue
            Jersey City, NJ 07307

                   - and -

            Roshan D. Shah, Esq.
            ANDERSON SHAH
            1040 Broad Street, Suite 304
            Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
            Telephone: (732) 398-6545

                   - and -

            Robert E. Levy, Esq.
            SCARINCI & HOLLENBECK
            1100 Valley Brook Avenue
            P.O. Box 790
            Lyndhurst, NJ 07071
            Telephone: (201) 896-4100

                   - and -

            Nathanya G. Simon, Esq.
            SCARINCI & HOLLENBECK
            1100 Valley Brook Avenue
            P.O. Box 790
            Lyndhurst, NJ 07071
            Telephone: (201) 896-7223

                   - and -

            William R. Burns, Esq.
            KALAVRUZOS MUMOLA HARTMAN LENTO & DUFF
            2681 Quakerbridge Road
            Hamilton, NJ 08619
            Telephone: (609) 586-9000

                   - and -

            Sanmathi Dev, Esq.
            CAPEHART SCATCHARD
            8000 Midlantic Drive
            Laurel Corporate Center, Suite 300S
            P.O. Box 5016
            Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
            Telephone: (856) 234-6800

                   - and -

            Eric L. Harrison
            METHFESSEL & WERBEL
            2025 Lincoln Highway, Suite 200
            Edison, NJ 08818
            Telephone: (732) 248-4200

                   - and -

            Gabrielle A. Pettineo, Esq.
            SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
            71 Monument Park
            P.O. Box 1266
            Freehold, NJ 07720
            Telephone: (732) 677-4175

                   - and -

            William S. Donio, Esq.
            COOPER LEVENSON
            1125 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
            Atlantic City, NJ 08401
            Telephone: (609) 572-7610

                   - and -

            Yolanda N. Melville, Esq.
            COOPER LEVENSON
            1125 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
            Atlantic City, NJ 08401
            Telephone: (609) 572-7376

NEW YORK, NY: Ellis Sues Over Unlawful Discriminations
------------------------------------------------------
Opal Ellis, proceeding individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated former and current uniform staff negligently afflicted
with COVID by the Department of Correction and/or whose rights to
reasonable accommodation were violated v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, and
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Case No. 159090/2022 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Oct. 25, 2022), is brought pursuant the
New York State Human Rights Laws, the New York City Human Rights
Law and Article I, Section 11 of the New York State Constitution
for relief for Disparate Impact and Intentional racial and
disability discrimination for purposes of preserving institutional
and structural discrimination against persons of Black/African
American descent, and persons with disabilities or perceived
disabilities, thereby wrongfully depriving the Plaintiffs of the
terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

The Plaintiff was caught in a wave of COVID-19 that ravaged the
Department, killing a number of the Plaintiff' colleagues that
worked in her immediate vicinity where they were stationed in the
Department's Security Operations Division ("SOD") located on Rikers
Island. Although the Plaintiff has survived, she was not spared
from suffering serious COVID-19, that resulted in her being in a
coma for several weeks, near death. Moreover, the Plaintiff had to
learn how to walk again. As a result of suffering severe COVID-19,
the Plaintiff was out of work on sick leave from about March/April
2020, through June 30, 2022, when her employment was terminated by
the Department pursuant to Sections 71 and 73 of the Civil Service
Law. However, a good portion of the Plaintiff' time out on the sick
leave was involuntary, as she attempted to return to work light
duty, known in the Department as "medically monitored," or "MM."
The Department's MM, light duty designation possesses 3 levels,
MM-1, MM-2, and MM-3, with the last prohibiting any kind of inmate
contact.

The Department's denial of the Plaintiff' light duty status to
return work, made no sense, since the Plaintiff, who had been
permanently assigned to SOD, effectively worked in a light duty
position, where there was little to no inmate contact anyway, where
the Plaintiff had been permanently assigned to SOD since 2008.
Moreover, the Department's MM status is a form of a reasonable
accommodation although such is not specifically designated or label
as "reasonable accommodation." The Department's handling of
COVID-19 has and continues to be problematic, since the inception
of COVID-19 when the Department expressly prohibited its employees
from wearing masks although the United States Centers for Disease
Control had instructed otherwise. As a result, the Plaintiff and
her colleagues suffered severe COVID-19, with many dying and
suffering severe COVID-19 and near death, as was the Plaintiff'
experience. As a result, the Plaintiff continues to suffer from
Long COVID. Despite repeated attempts to return to work, the
Department refused the Plaintiff the right to return to work with
reasonable accommodation and/or to transfer to a comparable agency,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former uniform staff member of the New York City
Department of Correction.

City of New York was and is a political subdivision of the State of
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Dubois Raynor, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CONSORTIUM.
          89-07 Jamaica Avenue
          Woodhaven, NY 11421
          Phone: (855) 246-2776, Ext. 702


NEW YORK, NY: Tal Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City Of New York,
et al. The case is styled as Fulano Del Tal, and those similarly
situated; Buildings Department Associate General Counsel, Juliet
Neisser, Esq. v. The City Of New York; NYC Office of Administrative
Trials and Hearings, Asim Rheman, Chief Judge; Nyc Office Of
Administrative Trials And Hearings; The New York City Buildings
Department, Eric Uhlrich, Commissioner of the NYC Department of
Buildings; Buildings Department First Deputy Commissioner - Kazimir
Vilenchik, PE; Buildings Department Associate General Counsel,
Juliet Neisser, Esq.; Buildings Department Assistant Commissioner
In Charge Of Enforcement, Ari, Wax, Esq. in his individual and
official capacity; Buildings Department Special Investigation Unit
First Deputy Inspector General, Kim Ryan Flores; Respondents, Case
No. 815631/2022E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Oct. 20, 2022).

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

New York City -- https://www.nyc.gov/ -- comprises 5 boroughs
sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gil V. Perez, Esq.
          30 Wall St FL 8
          New York, NY 10005-2205


OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Transfer of Pauli Suit to M.D. Pennsylvania Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES PAULI, Plaintiff v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (MAD/ML) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge
Mae D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of New York denies the Defendant's motion to transfer venue to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and
denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for equitable
tolling.

On March 22, 2022, Pauli commenced this collective and class action
against the Defendant. The Plaintiff's collective action asserts
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 201, and his class action claims violations of New York
Labor Law ("NYLL"), Art. 19 Section Sections 650, 191(1), 195(1),
195(3). Specifically, he claims the Defendant misclassified him and
the similarly-situated "Co-Team Leaders" employees as exempt
employees, resulting in deprivation of overtime compensation.

The Defendant is a company headquartered in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, operating over 400 stores across 29 states. About 49
of those stores are in Pennsylvania and about 28 stores are in New
York. The Plaintiff is a New York State resident who has been
employed at the Defendant's location in Cicero, New York as a
"Co-Team Lead" for over eight years.

The Plaintiff alleges he and similarly-situated current and former
Co-Team Leaders are "(i) entitled to unpaid wages from Defendant
for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium
pay and (ii) entitled to liquidated damages." He defines the
proposed collective class as "all current and former Co-Team
Leaders who have worked for Defendant from March 22, 2019 through
the date of trial, and elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to
the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)."

The Plaintiff also seeks designation of a class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. He alleges violations of NYLL
including the Defendant: (i) failing to pay Team Co-Leaders
overtime at the rate of one and one-half times the employee's
regular salary for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any
given workweek; and (ii) failing to pay spread of hours pay for all
work in excess of 10 hours in a single workday. The Plaintiff
defines the proposed class as "all current and former Co-Team
Leaders who have worked for Defendant in the State of New York from
March 22, 2016 through the date of trial."

The Plaintiff alleges "Co-Team Leaders are misclassified as exempt
and are not paid overtime." The Defendant classifies Co-Team Leads
as exempt workers under the FLSA. Its "Customer Service Associates,
Sales Associates, Sales Supervisors, Freight Flow Supervisors and
Assistant Team Leaders are classified as non-exempt and paid
overtime compensation."

The Plaintiff alleges he did not receive overtime compensation, and
the Defendant admits that he was an exempt employee and as such
paid a salary. He alleges that the responsibilities of Co-Team
Leaders and nonexempt employees "are virtually indistinguishable."
He alleges Co-Team Leaders spend the majority "of their time on
tasks such as unloading supply trucks, unboxing products, stocking
shelves, operating cash registers, cleaning the store, and helping
customers." He alleges typically working five days per week, for
more than 10 hours per day.

On June 27, 2022, the Defendant filed an answer denying allegations
of unlawful conduct. On July 21, 2022, Magistrate Judge Miroslav
Lovric presided over a Rule 16 Initial Conference.

On Aug. 11, 2022, the Defendant moved to change venue from the
Northern District of New York to the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. It argues that the interests of justice and judicial
efficiency, the convenience for witnesses, the role of the
Plaintiff's choice of forum in collective action cases, the ease of
access to sources, the convenience of the parties, the locus of
operative facts, the ability of process to compel the attendance of
witnesses, and the proposed transfer forum's familiarity with
governing law favor transfer.

On Sept. 1, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a cross motion for an order
of equitable tolling of the FLSA claims for members of the proposed
putative collective action. The action neither been granted a
conditional certification nor a Rule 23 class certification at this
time.

For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any
other district or division where it might have been brought or to
any district or division to which all parties have consented. In
deciding whether to utilize its discretion, a court looks to (1)
whether the action sought to be transferred is one that 'might have
been brought' in the transferee court; and (2) whether, considering
the 'convenience of the parties and witnesses,' and the interests
of justice, a transfer is appropriate.

Judge D'Agostino finds that while the action could have been
brought in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, most of the factors
are neutral or weigh against transferring the case from the
Northern District of New York to the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. Accordingly, she denies the Defendant's motion. And,
because the case does not present an "extraordinary circumstance,"
she denies without prejudice the motion for equitable tolling.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Memorandum-Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ye25cwrj from
Leagle.com.

ATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC, FRANK S. GATTUSO, ESQ. --
fgattuso@gclawoffice.com -- Fayetteville, New York, Attorneys for
the Plaintiff.

VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP, JAMES E. MURPHY, ESQ. --
jmurphy@vandallp.com -- MICHELE A. MORENO, ESQ. --
mmoreno@vandallp.com -- New York, New York, Attorneys for the
Plaintiff.

FISHER & PHILLIPS, KATHLEEN MCLEOD CAMINITI, ESQ. --
kcaminiti@fisherphillips.com -- Murray Hill, New Jersey, Attorneys
for the Defendant.


PACIFIC POWER: Trial Date in Wildfire Class Action Set April 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Urness, writing for Salem Statesman-Journal, reports that the
trial date for a high-stakes class action lawsuit that blames
Pacific Power for igniting four of Oregon's Labor Day fires is set
for next April.

Plaintiffs include owners of 300 properties burned in the Echo
Mountain fire in Otis, the 2,500 properties burned in the Beachie
Creek and Santiam Canyon fires, along with 242 in the South
Obenchain fires.

The outcome of the trial will impact anyone harmed by the fires,
even if they haven't taken legal action.

A court-approved website that provides details on the lawsuit,
including who is automatically involved and how to opt-out, is now
live.

The trial is scheduled to begin April 24.

Lawsuits began separately but were combined into one class action
suit filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland.
Plaintiffs' lawyers are led by three law firms -- Keller Rohrback,
Stoll Berne and Edelson.

The lawsuit alleges Pacific Power's failure to maintain its power
lines and shut down power during a historic east wind event on
Labor Day night in 2020 led to the ignition of the fires that
brought damage to homes, towns and businesses from the Santiam
Canyon to the Oregon Coast Range to southwest Oregon.

Pacific Power, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway Inc., denies
the claims. In previous court filings the utility called the fires
an "unavoidable accident or Act of God."

The lawsuit is proceeding despite one critical piece of missing
evidence: final investigation reports from the government agencies
charged with determining the cause of the fires. The Statesman
Journal reported last month that more than two years later, the
Oregon Department of Forestry and U.S. Forest Service have not
issued final investigation reports on any of the 10 Labor Day
fires.

The case will move forward with a jury trial in April, centering on
whether Oregon's second-largest utility was at fault. No money
would be awarded as a result of the case, but if the plaintiffs are
successful and Pacific Power found negligent, a separate legal
proceeding to determine damages would likely be set up.

Who's impacted by the lawsuit?
Since there are so many people impacted by the four fires, the
suit's website outlines details of the case and who might be
impacted by the trial's outcome.

Anyone impacted in the four wildfires -- and live within the map of
the impacted area -- are part of the suit, even if they haven't
taken legal action. That means they're bound to the result of the
trial unless they decide to opt-out.

If you were impacted by the fire but do nothing, you will stay part
of the suit and remain bound to the outcome of the trial, according
to the website.

You will "enjoy the benefits of the lawsuit if plaintiffs prevail,
but be bound to the outcome either way, and give up the right to
litigate whether (Pacific Power) is liable for your fire-related
damages in your own lawsuit," the website states.

If the suit is successful, plaintiffs will be able to "use any
favorable findings a jury makes in a future proceeding to determine
whether you are entitled to compensation," the website said.

If you were impacted by the fires and decide to opt-out, you must
ask to be excluded no later than Dec. 6.

For those that choose to opt-out, they would "Get no benefit from
(the lawsuit), but preserve your right to litigate whether (Pacific
Power) is liable for your fire-related damages in your own
lawsuit," the website said.

To opt-out or clarify your situation, call 1-844-633-0692, email
info@PacifiCorpFireLitigation.com or mail to PacifiCorp Fire
Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91348 Seattle,
WA., 98111. [GN]

POLITBURO OF THE CHINESE: Zhao Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
YAN ZHAO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled Yan Zhao, et al., individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Keqiang Li, in his
official capacity of The Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party
(CCP), et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03138-TJK, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against the Defendants for
alleged conspiracy with the Chinese government to illegally
expropriate their hotel properties by declaring the arbitration
agreement formed under the Delaware Rapid Arbitration Act
fraudulent and the arbitration awards invalid.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Timothy
J. Kelly on October 11, 2022. Judge Kelly dismissed the case with
prejudice. The Court found that the Plaintiffs have violated Rule
11(b)(1) by submitting filings for the improper purpose of
harassing others and have violated Rule 11(b)(2) by advancing
frivolous legal contentions in their filings. The Plaintiffs
asserted that their actions were legally defensible and were done
in good faith, but they provided no authority to show or even
suggest as much. And their repeated and ongoing misconduct, in this
Court and elsewhere, shows that they have acted vexatiously. The
Court also held that a sanction against the Plaintiffs themselves
is warranted.

The appellate case is captioned Yan Zhao, et al. v. Keqiang Li, et
al., Case No. 22-7138, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on October 13, 2022. [BN]

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

            Ning Ye, Esq.
            LAW OFFICE OF NING YE
            36-26A Union Street, Suite 3F
            Flushing, NY 11354
            Telephone: (718) 321-9899

Defendants-Appellees Keqiang Li, in his official capacity of The
Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), et al., are
represented by:

            Elizabeth Petrela Papez, Esq.
            GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
            1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
            Washington, DC 20036
            Telephone: (202) 955-8500

                   - and -

            Allison J. McCowan, Esq.
            DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
            820 N. French Street
            Wilmington, DE 19801
            Telephone: (302) 577-8600

                   - and -

            Nicholas Hazelwood, Esq.
            WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
            680 Maine Avenue, SW
            Washington, DC 20024
            Telephone: (202) 434-5000

PRECISION IMAGING: Sharfman May Seek Subscribers' Info, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MARC IRWIN SHARFMAN M.D. P.A., Plaintiff v.
PRECISION IMAGING ST. AUGUSTINE LLC and HALO DX, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 6:22-cv-642-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel
C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, grants in part the Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion for Entry of Authorization Order Under the Cable Act.

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq.,
regarding allegedly unsolicited fax advertisements that the
Defendants sent to the Plaintiff and to the putative class.

Pursuant to section 551(c)(2)(B) of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 551(c)(2)(B), the Plaintiff seeks an order authorizing
those telecommunications service providers to disclose personally
identifiable information of their subscribers. The Motion is
designated as unopposed. Further, the time to respond has passed,
so the Court also deems the Motion unopposed.

The Plaintiff provides decisional authority supporting the
proposition that the Court should enter the requested order,
including decisions by judges of this district entered recently on
an almost identical issue (citing Scoma Chiropractic, P.A. v.
National Spine and Pain Centers LLC, et al, 2021 WL 4991523, at *4
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2021).

The Court finds that the requested discovery is relevant and
proportional to the needs of this case, noting again that the
Defendants have not opposed the requested discovery. The Complaint
in this case sets forth a putative class and requests certification
of that class, and the information sought in the subpoenas at issue
is--as already stated--relevant and proportional to the issue of
class certification.

Accordingly, Judge Irick ordered that the Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion for Entry of Authorization Order Under the Cable Act is
granted in part as follows:

The Plaintiff may serve a copy of this Order on the
telecommunications service providers (and any subsidiaries or
affiliated entities) who provided service to Plaintiff and the
putative class. By this Order, the telecommunications service
providers are authorized to disclose the names and addresses of
subscribers associated with certain fax numbers to be provided to
them by the Plaintiff. However, this discovery will be conditioned
on the following:

   (a) the telecommunications service providers will have seven
       days after service of this Order to notify the subscribers
       that their names and addresses are being sought by
       the Plaintiff;

   (b) each subscriber whose name and address is sought will have
       21 days from the date of notice by the telecommunications
       service providers to file, submit, or otherwise assert any
       opposition to the requested disclosure; and

   (c) payment to the telecommunications service providers by
       the Plaintiff of any reasonable costs incurred in
       providing the pre-disclosure notifications to subscribers;
       compiling the requested information; and otherwise
       complying with this Order.

The telecommunications services providers may provide notice using
any reasonable means, including notice by regular mail, e-mail,
facsimile, or otherwise.

All information disclosed by the telecommunications service
providers in response to this Order may be used by the Plaintiff
solely for this matter.

Good faith attempts by the telecommunications service providers to
notify subscribers will constitute compliance with this Order.

Judge Irick also rules that the Motion is denied in all other
respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 17, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mpnu8ydw from Leagle.com.


RED APPLE: Denial of Bid for Fees & Expenses in Flynn Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASON FLYNN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Appellant v. RED APPLE 670 PACIFIC
STREET, Defendant-Respondent, Index No. 159187/20, Appeal No.
16528, Case No. 2022-02603 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division
of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, unanimously
affirms, without costs, the order Judge Debra James of the Supreme
Court of New York County, entered June 3, 202.

The order denied the Defendant Landlord's motion to recover
attorneys' fees and expenses it incurred in successfully defending
against Plaintiff Tenant's putative class action for rent
overcharges.

The Appellate Division holds that Landlord has not established that
it is entitled to indemnification of its legal fees, as it has not
shown that the lease provision at issue was unmistakably intended
to pertain to claims raised between the parties. Article 20(A)(5)
of the parties' residential lease grants the landlord the right to
seek legal fees where it has been obliged to defend against
lawsuits brought by third parties against the landlord as a result
of the tenant's acts.

Furthermore, limitations on the Landlord's right to legal fees can
be gleaned from lease article 20(B), which provides that the tenant
may recover attorneys' fees only where the landlord brings an
action against the tenant for a default under the lease and the
tenant prevails, or where the statutory reciprocity provision
allows the tenant to recover those fees (Real Property Law Section
234). Since the Tenant's right to attorneys' fees is limited to
specific circumstances, article 20(A)(5) must be construed in a
similar light.

The Appellate Division rejects the Landlord's argument that because
the Tenant made a similar claim for legal fees in a previous
action, he should be judicially estopped from challenging the claim
to legal fees. In fact, the Tenant was unsuccessful on that prior
claim, and in any event, his mere pleading does not render
inequitable his opposition to the Landlord's claim for attorneys'
fees.

The Appellate Division has considered the Landlord's remaining
arguments and finds them unavailing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdz2795e from Leagle.com.

Belkin Burden Goldman, LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz --
mcruz@bbgllp.com -- of counsel), for the Appellant.

Newman Ferrara LLP, New York (Roger A. Sachar -- rsachar@nfllp.com
-- of counsel), for the Respondent.


RENEWABLE ENERGY: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: RENEWABLE ENERGY GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION.
STEVEN ROSA, Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID RAMSEY & CHRIS OLSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. RENEWABLE ENERGY GROUP INC., RANDOLPH L. HOWARD,
CYNTHIA J. WARNER, CHAD STONE & TODD ROBINSON,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-335 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the district court's Jan.
20, 2022 opinion and order dismissing with prejudice Steven Rosa's
Amended Class Action Complaint against the Defendants-Appellees.

Mr. Rosa appeals the district court's dismissal with prejudice of
his Complaint against Defendants-Appellees REG, its former CEO
Howard, current CEO Warner, former CFO Stone, and current CFO
Robinson for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5, premised on misstatements concerning the
quality of REG's internal accounting and operational controls.
According to Rosa, the Defendants defrauded investors when they
attested to the adequacy of REG's internal controls and forecasted
earnings in public statements and regulatory filings, despite
knowing of or deliberately ignoring glaring deficiencies in the
Company's financial forecasting model and mechanisms to detect
mechanical issues at its biorefineries.

On appeal, Rosa contends that the district court erred in
dismissing the Complaint for failure to plead allegations that give
rise to a strong inference of scienter. He also argues that the
district court erred by denying him leave to amend.

The Second Circuit holds that the Complaint lacks sufficiently
compelling circumstantial evidence to make an inference of
recklessness cogent and at least as compelling as the opposing
inference of mere negligence. Concerning recklessness, it finds
that the generalized allegations predicated on what the Defendants
must have known by virtue of their responsibilities and activities
as a senior officer, are precisely the kind of conclusory
allegations that fail to satisfy the PSLRA's heightened pleading
standard. Nor does REG's earlier revision of its April 30, 2020
earnings projection for the second quarter of 2020 support a strong
inference of scienter as to the fuel blending failure.

Furthermore, regarding the guidance-model incident, the Second
Circuit finds that the PSLRA's safe harbor forecloses Rosa's
recklessness arguments. REG's April 2020 earnings forecast falls
within the PSLRA's safe harbor for forward-looking statements. As
such, Rosa's recklessness-based arguments are categorically
insufficient to prove that the Defendants released REG's earnings
forecast with scienter. Finally, Rosa has not connected a plant
manager (or any other unnamed managerial employee) to any alleged
misstatement, which is fatal to his argument for corporate
scienter.

Because Rosa seeks to supplement the Complaint with allegations of
scienter based on a document that cannot bear the weight of the
inference that he ascribes, the district court did not err in
denying leave to amend.

The Second Circuit has considered Rosa's remaining arguments and
finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, it affirms the
judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Summary Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p94v2za from Leagle.com.

IVY T. NGO -- ingo@fnf.law -- (Edward Normand -- tnormand@fnf.law
-- Velvel (Devin) Freedman -- vel@fnf.law -- & Constantine P.
Economides -- ceconomides@fnf.law -- on the brief), Roche Freedman
LLP, New York, NY & Miami, FL, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brian Schall -- brian@schallfirm.com -- on the brief, The Schall
Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.

MICHAEL G. BONGIORNO -- MICHAEL.BONGIORNO@WILMERHALE.COM -- (Jeremy
T. Adler -- jeremy.adler@wilmerhale.com -- Susan S. Muck --
susan.muck@wilmerhale.com -- Felicia Ellsworth --
felicia.ellsworth@wilmerhale.com -- & Sofie Brooks --
sofie.brooks@wilmerhale.com -- on the brief), Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, Boston, MA & San
Francisco, CA, for the Defendants-Appellees.


SALLIE MAE: Homaidan's Bid for Prelim. Injunction Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth S. Stong of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of New York issued a Memorandum Decision
granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction in the lawsuits titled In re: HILAL KHALIL HOMAIDAN, aka
Helal K. Homaidan, Chapter 7, Debtor. In re: REEHAM YOUSSEF, aka
Reeham Navarro Youssef, aka Reeham N. Youssef, Chapter 7, Debtor.
HILAL KHALIL HOMAIDAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and REEHAM YOUSSEF, Plaintiffs v. SALLIE MAE,
INC., NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case Nos. 08-48275-ess, 13-46495-ess, Adv. Pro. No.
17-1085-ess (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Hilal Khalil Homaidan and Reeham Youssef seek, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated within a putative
class, a preliminary injunction to enjoin Navient Solutions, LLC
and Navient Credit Finance Corp. (together, "Navient") from
continuing their collection efforts on certain loans held by the
Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class (the "Preliminary
Injunction Motion"). They seek this relief on grounds that these
private student loans are within the scope of their Chapter 7
bankruptcy discharges, and that Navient has disregarded that fact
as it has continued its collection efforts for at least the past
ten years.

In this adversary proceeding, the Plaintiffs allege, as to
themselves and the putative class, that they attended or intended
to attend Title IV institutions and received private loans owned or
serviced by the Defendants that exceeded the cost of attendance at
such institutions as defined by Internal Revenue Code Section
221(d), that they obtained bankruptcy discharges after Jan. 1,
2005, that they have not reaffirmed their loans, and that they have
been, and may continue to be, subjected to the Defendants' actions
to collect on these loans.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue that their private student loans
were discharged in their Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases because these
loans do not meet the requirements to be nondischargeable under
Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(8)(B) -- that is, their loans are
not qualified education loans pursuant to Internal Revenue Code
Section 221(d)(1). Namely, the Plaintiffs assert their loans do not
meet Internal Revenue Code Section 221(d)'s requirement that a loan
must not exceed the cost of attendance at a Title IV institution to
be a "qualified education loan."

As such, the Plaintiffs assert, the Defendants' continuing
collection efforts on their outstanding private student loans that
were discharged violate the statutory bankruptcy discharge
contained in Bankruptcy Code Section 524(a)(2). And at this stage
in these proceedings, the Plaintiffs argue, the requirements for
preliminary injunctive relief in favor of the putative nationwide
class have been met, and these collection efforts should be
stopped.

Navient opposes the Preliminary Injunction Motion, on several
grounds. As a threshold matter, it argues that the only pathway to
a remedy for a violation of the bankruptcy discharge is a
proceeding or motion for contempt. Navient states that the Court
lacks the jurisdiction to address violations of discharge orders
entered by other bankruptcy courts. Navient also argues that
certain putative class members lack Article III standing to seek
relief against it, as they have suffered no harm.

On June 23, 2017, Mr. Homaidan commenced this adversary proceeding
(the "Adversary Proceeding") as a putative class action, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, by filing a complaint
against SLM Corporation, Sallie Mae, Inc., Navient Solutions, LLC,
and Navient Credit Finance Corporation. As to himself, Mr. Homaidan
seeks a determination that certain debts that he incurred as a
student are not nondischargeable student loan debts under
Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(8)(B), and an award of damages,
including attorneys' fees and costs, for the Defendants' willful
violations of the bankruptcy discharge order entered in his case.
And as to the class, he seeks the same relief.

On Oct. 30, 2017, Navient filed a motion to compel arbitration or,
in the alternative, to dismiss the Adversary Proceeding (the
"Motion to Compel or Dismiss") and a Memorandum of Law in Support
of the Motion to Compel or Dismiss. On Dec. 1, 2017, the Court
approved a stipulation of dismissal as to Defendant SLM
Corporation. Mr. Homaidan filed an opposition and Navient filed a
reply in support of the Motion to Compel or Dismiss.

On July 25, 2018, the Court issued a memorandum decision on the
Motion to Compel or Dismiss, and denied the motion to the extent it
sought to compel arbitration of Mr. Homaidan's claims.

On Jan. 31, 2019, the Court issued a second memorandum decision on
the Motion to Compel or Dismiss, and denied the motion to the
extent it sought to dismiss the Adversary Proceeding. On Feb. 14,
2019, Navient filed a notice of appeal to the District Court of
this Court's order denying its request to dismiss the Adversary
Proceeding.

Thereafter, Mr. Homaidan filed an amended complaint to add Ms.
Youssef as a named plaintiff and proposed class representative. The
Court entered an Order permitting amendment of the complaint to add
Ms. Youssef as a named plaintiff and a proposed class
representative.

On Dec. 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking three forms
of relief: an order certifying a nationwide class in this Adversary
Proceeding (the "Class Certification Motion" or "Class Cert.
Mot."), an order for partial summary judgment on liability and
restitution (the "Partial Summary Judgment Motion"), and the
Preliminary Injunction Motion (together, the "Pending Motions").

In the Class Certification Motion, the Plaintiffs seek to certify
an injunctive relief class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2), and a damages class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), consisting of:

     Individuals who attended or intended to attend Title IV
     institutions and who received private loans owned or
     serviced by Defendants which exceeded the cost of attendance
     at such institutions as defined in 26 U.S.C. Section 221(d);
     who obtained bankruptcy discharges after January 1, 2005;
     who were subsequently subjected to Defendants' acts to
     collect on the loans; and who have not reaffirmed their
     loans.

On Dec. 20, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an amended Preliminary
Injunction Motion. On Feb. 3, 2020, Navient filed a response in
opposition to the Preliminary Injunction Motion, which the
Plaintiffs replied.

On Feb. 25, 2020, the District Court granted Navient's motion to
certify the order denying the Motion to Compel or Dismiss to the
extent it sought to dismiss the Adversary proceeding for direct
appeal to the Second Circuit (Homaidan v. Sallie Mae, Inc., 2020 WL
5668972 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2020)). And on July 15, 2021, the
Second Circuit affirmed the Court's order denying Navient's motion
to dismiss the Adversary Proceeding (Homaidan v. Sallie Mae, Inc.,
3 F.4th 595 (2d Cir. 2021)).

On Aug. 23, 2021, the Court entered an Order assigning this
Adversary Proceeding to mediation. And on Sept. 7, 2021, the Court
entered a Stipulation and Mediation Order, where the parties
jointly accepted Eric Green of Resolutions LLC to provide mediation
services.

On April 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order (the "TRO Motion"). On May 9, 2022, Navient filed
opposition to the TRO Motion. On May 25, 2022, the Court held oral
argument on the TRO Motion, at which the parties, by counsel,
appeared and were heard.

On July 8, 2022, the Court issued a memorandum decision on the TRO
Motion (the "TRO Decision") and an order granting in part the TRO
Motion to the extent that it sought to enjoin Navient from taking
any acts to collect on private Tuition Answer Loans held by the
Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members, as the class is described in
the Amended Complaint, that exceed the cost of attendance as
defined by Internal Revenue Code Section 221(d), and that have an
outstanding balance subject to collection.

On July 21, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the Preliminary
Injunction Motion and set a schedule for the filing of supplemental
briefs. On July 25, 2022, Navient filed a notice of appeal to the
District Court of the Court's order granting in part the TRO
Motion, as well as a Motion to Stay Temporary Restraining Order
(the "Motion to Stay"). And on July 26, 2022, Navient filed a
Notice of Motion to Stay Temporary Restraining Order.

On Sept. 2, 2022, the Court issued a memorandum decision (the "Stay
Decision") and an order denying Navient's request for a stay
pending appeal. And on Sept. 6, 2022, the District Court denied
Navient's request for leave to appeal, effectively denying a stay
as well, in its Memorandum and Order.

The TRO was set to expire on Sept. 20, 2022. On Sept. 9, 2022, the
Court entered an Order to Show Cause why the TRO should not be
extended for good cause pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
65.

The Court held a hearing on the Order to Show Cause on Sept. 19,
2022. At that hearing, the possibility of a scheduling conflict
with the Jewish high holy days was noted, and thereafter, Navient
filed a letter consenting to an extension of the TRO through Oct.
14, 2022. And also on Sept. 19, the Court held oral argument on the
Preliminary Injunction Motion.

The Court concludes that as to the threshold questions concerning
the Plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunctive relief, the
Plaintiffs have Article III standing to seek this relief on behalf
of themselves and the Putative Class Members, and they seek
preliminary injunctive relief only on behalf of Putative Class
Members, who are similarly situated and have standing to seek the
same relief.

In addition, Judge Stong holds that the preliminary injunction
sought by the Plaintiffs is prohibitory, not mandatory, in nature
because it relates back to the "last actual, peaceable uncontested
status" between the parties and seeks to return the parties to the
status quo before Navient's asserted violations of the Plaintiffs'
bankruptcy discharges began. And finally, the preliminary
injunction that the Plaintiffs seek does not improperly shift a
burden to Navient or the Defendants.

The Court agrees with Navient that an order enjoining conduct must
be clear -- in stating the reasons why it issued, stating its terms
with specificity, and stating precisely the actions that are
restrained or required.

Based on the entire record, the Court concludes that the
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Putative Class Members,
do not seek an "unauthorized" preliminary injunction. The Court
also concludes that they have shown: a likelihood of success on the
merits of their discharge violation claims against Navient; a
likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of relief; that the
balance of hardships tips in their favor; that the public interest
would not be disserved by a preliminary injunction; and that the
Court may enter a preliminary injunction on behalf of the Putative
Class Members, whether or not their bankruptcy discharge was
entered in this District.

The Court declines the invitation to expand preliminary injunctive
relief -- at this time -- to the larger group of those Putative
Class Members encompassing student borrowers who entered into other
private loans that exceed the cost of attendance, as the class is
described in the Class Certification Motion.

The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs are not required to post a
bond, as a preliminary injunction enjoining Navient from collection
activities on Putative Class Members' private Tuition Answer Loans
that were in excess of the cost of attendance does not harm any
legitimate legal interest of Navient.

For the reasons stated, and based on the entire record, the
Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is granted in part.
Navient is restrained and enjoined from taking any acts to collect
on Tuition Answer Loans held by the Plaintiffs and the Putative
Class Members, as the class is described in the Amended Complaint,
that exceed the cost of attendance as defined by Internal Revenue
Code Section 221(d), and that have an outstanding balance subject
to collection.

In view of the pendency of the Court's Temporary Restraining Order,
which was entered on July 6, 2022, and has been in effect since
Sept. 6, 2022, Navient has had reasonable and sufficient time to
implement compliance measures, and this Memorandum Decision and the
accompanying order will be effective immediately. An order in
accordance with this Memorandum Decision will be entered
simultaneously herewith.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision dated Oct. 17,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2wwrcy7w from
Leagle.com.

George F. Carpinello, Esq. -- gcarpinello@bsfllp.com -- Adam Shaw,
Esq. -- ashaw@bsfllp.com -- Robert C. Tietjen, Esq., Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP, in Albany, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Thomas M. Farrell, Esq. -- tfarrell@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire
Woods LLP, JPMorgan Chase Tower, in Houston, Texas, Attorneys for
the Defendants.

Jason W. Burge, Esq. -- jburge@fishmanhaygood.com -- Kathryn J.
Johnson, Esq. -- Fishman Haygood LLP, in New Orleans, Louisiana,
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.

Lynn E. Swanson, Esq. -- lswanson@jonesswanson.com -- Peter N.
Freiberg, Esq., Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, in New
Orleans, Louisiana, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.

Shawn R. Fox, Esq. -- sfox@mcguirewoods.com -- Joseph A. Florczak,
Esq. -- jflorczak@mcguirewoods.com -- Dion W. Hayes, Esq., --
dhayes@mcguirewoods.com -- K. Elizabeth Sieg, Esq. --
bsieg@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, in New York City,
Attorneys for the Defendants.


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Litvinova Appeals Judgment in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
TATYANA LITVINOVA is taking an appeal from a court order denying
her bid to alter judgment in the lawsuit styled Tatyana Litvinova,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. City and County of San Francisco, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01494-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed a class action suit against the Defendant for alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

On May 26, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment.

On July 15, 2022, Judge Richard Seeborg granted the motion and
ordered the case's termination.

On August 12, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to
reconsider it ruling and to alter judgment.

On September 12, 2022, the Court denied the Plaintiff's bid to
alter judgment. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff's mere
disagreement with the Court's analysis of the facts and the case
law is not a basis for reconsideration. The Plaintiff has not shown
that the decision was erroneous or unjust on either on the facts or
the law. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of judgment and order is denied.

The appellate case is captioned Tatyana Litvinova v. City and
County of San Francisco, Case No. 22-16568, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 13, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Tatyana Litvinova Mediation Questionnaire was due
on October 20, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on December 12, 2022;

   -- Appellant Tatyana Litvinova opening brief is due on January
20, 2023.

   -- Appellee City and County of San Francisco answering brief is
due on February 21, 2023; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant TATYANA LITVINOVA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Eduardo Gregory Roy, Esq.
            PROMETHEUS PARTNERS
            555 Montgomery Street, Suite 708
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 370-4375

Defendant-Appellee CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO is represented
by:

            Linda Margaret Ross, Esq.
            RENNE PUBLIC LAW GROUP
            350 Sansome Street, Suite 300
            San Francisco, CA 94104
            Telephone: (415) 848-7200

SYNGENTA AG: Denial of Kellogg Farmers' Intervention Bid Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled In Re: Syngenta Ag Mir 162 Corn Litigation
(Kellogg Farmers), Case No. 20-3257 (10th Cir.), the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirms the denial of the
Kellogg farmers' motions for recusal and intervention.

The case involves a group of corn producers (the Kellogg farmers)
who filed individual suits against an agricultural business
(Syngenta AG) and then sought to intervene in a separate class
action filed against Syngenta. Through intervention in the class
action, the Kellogg farmers wanted to oppose the disbursement of a
fee award to their former attorneys. The Kellogg farmers claimed
that their former attorneys had forfeited their attorney fees by
violating federal and state statutes, engaging in fraud, and
breaching fiduciary duties.

The district court denied the Kellogg farmers' motion to intervene.
In denying the motion, the court noted that it had already
dismissed the Kellogg farmers' claims against their former
attorneys. Because the dismissal had not been stayed, the Kellogg
farmers no longer had an interest in the fees disbursed to their
former attorneys.

So, the district court didn't allow the Kellogg farmers to
intervene in the class action. The court also denied the Kellogg
farmers' motion for recusal. The Kellogg farmers appeal the
district court's decisions (1) declining to recuse, and (2)
disallowing intervention.

In a related appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of
the Kellogg farmers' claims and the decision not to recuse. In
light of its opinion in the related appeal, the Court of Appeals
affirms the denial of the Kellogg farmers' motions for recusal and
intervention.

In appealing the denial of intervention, the Kellogg farmers also
assert that the fees to their attorneys are disputed and must be
held in escrow until appeals have been exhausted here and in the
Supreme Court. But the Kellogg farmers do not cite any authority
for this argument, and an unstayed judgment normally takes effect
despite a pending appeal. The Court of Appeals, thus, rejects the
Kellogg farmers' argument for intervention based on a continued
dispute over the attorney fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Judgment dated Oct. 17,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/28xjwtc9 from
Leagle.com.


TA OPERATING: Appeals Arbitration Bid Order in Holley-Gallegly Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TA OPERATING, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying
its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Kenneth
Holley-Gallegly, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TA Operating, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-00593-JGB-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, alleged violations of
the California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime
pay rate, failure to pay premium wages at the legal pay rate,
failure to provide legally-compliant rest periods, derivative and
independent failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to reimburse work expenses, and penalties.

On August 15, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge Jesus G. Bernal on September 16, 2022.

The appellate case is captioned Kenneth Holley-Gallegly v. TA
Operating, LLC, Case No. 22-55950, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 14, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant TA Operating, LLC Mediation Questionnaire was due
on October 21, 2022;

   -- Appellant TA Operating, LLC opening brief is due on December
12, 2022;

   -- Appellee Kenneth Holley-Gallegly answering brief is due on
January 11, 2023; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellees KENNETH HOLLEY-GALLEGLY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Kevin Barnes, Esq.
            Gregg Lander, Esq.
            LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
            1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor
            Los Angeles, CA 90025
            Telephone: (323) 549-9100

Defendant-Appellant TA OPERATING, LLC is represented by:

            Mia Farber, Esq.
            JACKSON LEWIS, PC
            725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
            Los Angeles, CA 90017
            Telephone: (213) 689-0404

                   - and -

            Eric Gitig, Esq.
            JACKSON LEWIS, PC
            725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
            Los Angeles, CA 90017
            Telephone: (213) 630-8242

                   - and -

            Semarnpreet Kaur, Esq.
            JACKSON LEWIS, PC
            200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
            Irvine, CA 92618
            Telephone: (949) 885-5265

                   - and -

            Robert Loeb, Esq.
            ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
            1152 15th Street, NW
            Washington, DC 20005
            Telephone: (202) 339-8400

                   - and -

            E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Esq.
            ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
            51 W. 52nd Street
            New York, NY 10019

TOYOTA MOTOR: Perez's Implied Warranty Claim Tossed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE JAVIER PEREZ, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
U.S.A., INC., et al., Defendants, Case 2116 2:22-cv-00780-ODW
(AFMx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss Perez's amended implied warranty claim with
prejudice.

On Oct. 12, 2021, Perez initiated the putative class action against
Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. ("TMS"), Toyota Motor
Corp. ("TMC"), and Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC.

TMS manufacturers, distributes, and sells Toyota vehicles in the
United States. TMC is the parent company of TMS (collectively,
"Toyota"). Southeast Toyota distributes Toyota vehicles, parts, and
accessories to dealers in several states, including Florida.

Mr. Perez alleges that Toyota enters into agreements with its
nationwide network of authorized dealerships for the exclusive
right to sell new Toyota vehicles to consumers. He also alleges
that Toyota provides warranties directly to consumers who purchase
new vehicles from authorized dealerships.

On Aug. 5, 2019, Perez purchased a new 2020 Toyota Prius Prime from
non-party Central Florida Toyota-Scion, an authorized Toyota dealer
in Florida. Within a week of his purchase, he noticed a foul odor
emanating from the Vehicle's air-conditioning vents. He alleges
that this odor is caused by defects in the Vehicle's heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning system ("HVAC"). Perez further
alleges that the Defendants knew of the HVAC defects affecting the
Vehicle, yet failed to disclose this information to Perez prior to
his purchase, and that Toyota knew the Vehicle would be purchased
by consumers from authorized dealerships, passing unchanged from
dealers to consumers.

On Jan. 3, 2022, Perez filed the First Amended Complaint, which the
Defendants moved to dismiss. The Court denied the Defendants'
motion with respect to Perez's Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act ("FDUTPA") claim, but granted the motion to dismiss
Perez's implied and express warranty claims, with leave to amend.

Mr. Perez then filed the Second Amended Complaint, in which he
asserts two causes of action on behalf of himself and similarly
situated members of a putative class: (1) violations of FDUTPA,
Fla. Stat. Sections 501.212 et seq.; and (2) breach of implied
warranties, Fla. Stat. Sections 672.314, 680.212.

The Defendants now move to dismiss Perez's breach of implied
warranties claim with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

Because Perez purchased the Vehicle from a non-party dealership,
his purchase does not place him in privity with the Defendants for
purposes of enforcing an implied warranty under Florida law. Perez
argues that he has established privity under third-party
beneficiary and agency theories, and that Florida law recognizes
these theories as exceptions to the privity requirement.

Judge Wright holds that Perez's conclusory allegations fail to
demonstrate the existence of a contract that expressly designates
Perez and the putative class members as third-party beneficiaries.
Thus, his factual allegations as to his third-party beneficiary
status are insufficient to raise his claim for relief above the
speculative level as required to survive dismissal. Perez's implied
warranty claim is not sufficiently pleaded under a third-party
beneficiary theory.

Alternatively, Perez argues that Florida law recognizes an agency
exception to the privity requirement.

Again, Perez offers no binding authority to support the application
of an agency theory to implied warranty claims in a
manufacturer-dealership-consumer context, Judge Wright holds.
Absent sufficient facts, Perez cannot rely on a "principal-agent
theory" as an "end-run around Florida's historic privity
requirement." Perez fails to sufficiently plead an agency exception
to survive dismissal of his implied warranty claim. Because Perez
fails to allege contractual privity with the Defendants or an
applicable exception, his implied warranty claim fails.

Further, Judge Wright concludes that leave to amend is not
warranted. Perez fails to cure this deficiency in his Second
Amended Complaint. Given Perez's previous opportunity to cure the
deficiencies in his implied warranty claim, his failure to plead
sufficient facts in his Second Amended Complaint indicates that
further amendment would be futile.

For these reasons, Judge Wright concludes that despite amending his
allegations, Perez fails to cure the prior deficiencies identified
by the Court. He grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss Perez's
implied warranty claim with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8rkny5 from Leagle.com.


U.S. BANCORP: Minnesota Court Refuses to Strike Adams' Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SUE ANN ADAMS, PATRICIA J. Case PETTENGER,
and MARLA K. SNEAD, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. BANCORP, the BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case
No. 22-CV-509 (NEB/LIB) (D. Minn.), Judge Nancy E. Brasel of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss and strike class allegations.

A few years back, former employees of U.S. Bancorp sued their
employer with materially identical claims to those alleged here
(Smith v. U.S. Bancorp, No. 18-CV-3405 (PAM/KMM), 2019 WL 2644204
(D. Minn. June 27, 2019)). The employees asserted that U.S. Bancorp
decreased the value of their pensions in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et
seq. ("ERISA"). The court denied U.S. Bancorp's motion to dismiss,
concluding that it was plausible that the company violated 29
U.S.C. Sections 1054(c)(3) and 1053(a) of the ERISA. Later,
however, the court declined to certify the plaintiffs' class,
leading them to voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice
(Thorne v. U.S. Bancorp, No. 18-CV-3405 (PAM/KMM), 2021 WL 1977126,
at *4 (D. Minn. May 18, 2021)).

Attempting a do-over, a different group of former U.S. Bancorp
employees--Sue Adams, Patricia Pettenger, and Marla Snead
("Plaintiffs")--bring this putative class action. The Plaintiffs
attempt to dodge the class certification issues that plagued their
peers in Smith. But their underlying claims largely remain the
same.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of U.S. Bancorp. They each
accrued "Part B" retirement benefits under the U.S. Bank Pension
Plan ("Plan"). The Plan is a defined-benefit retirement program
that provides, in its simplest form, an annuity consisting of
monthly payments from age 65 the typical retirement age) until a
retiree's passing.

The Plaintiffs retired before turning 65, so their monthly pension
benefits needed to be adjusted downward to account for a longer
benefits withdrawal period. They allege that the discount and
mortality rate assumptions used to make that adjustment led to an
improper overall reduction of their total benefits as compared to
what they would have received had they retired at 65. The
Plaintiffs, therefore, claim that U.S. Bancorp, the Benefits
Administration Committee, and the individual members of that
committee ("Defendants") violated Sections 1054(c)(3) and 1053(a).

The Plaintiffs allege that actuarial-equivalence calculations
require a comparison of the present value of the total amount of
benefits to be received under two forms of benefits to make sure
they are equal. Calculating the present value of two benefit forms
requires two assumptions: a discount (or interest) rate and a
mortality table. They assert that the standards of the actuarial
profession require that those assumptions be reasonable.

The Plan provides its own specific method to calculate "actuarial
equivalent" values without any mention of reasonableness. It uses
Plan-defined early commencement factors ("ECFs") to reduce benefits
by a set percentage. The Plan does not specify the mortality and
discount-rate assumptions underlying its ECF values. But the ECFs
that apply to the Plaintiffs have not changed since 2002, and life
expectancies and discount rates have changed substantially since
then.

The Plaintiffs, therefore, contend that the ECF multipliers are
"unreasonable, excessive, and punitive." They allege that the
original assumptions on which they are based were "unreasonable and
outdated" in 2002, let alone today. To compare, they reference the
actuarial assumptions prepared by the U.S. Department of the
Treasury. They assert that for some Plan participants, benefits
were reduced roughly 40% more than they would have been had the
Defendants used the Treasury's discount and mortality rate figures.
The result, according to the Plaintiffs, is that they are receiving
less in benefits than they are entitled to each month.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and
others whose early-retirement benefits were reduced by the Plan's
ECFs. They seek declaratory and equitable relief under 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132(a)(3), which authorizes civil actions to redress ERISA
violations. The Plaintiffs allege two such violations: first, that
the Plan's ECF methodology resulted in early-retirement benefits
that are not actuarially equivalent to what they would have
received had they retired at 65, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section
1054(c)(3); and second, that the Plan's methodology required them
to forfeit benefits in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1053(a). They
bring a claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on the violation
of those provisions as well.

The Defendants move to dismiss, arguing that their methodology did
not violate Sections 1054(c)(3) or 1053(a). In the same filing,
they also ask the Court to strike the Plaintiffs' class
allegations, asserting that their revised class definition is an
impermissible fail-safe class.

As to the first claim, they argue that Section 1054(c)(3) does not
require pension plans to calculate early-retirement benefits with
"reasonable" assumptions--and that the Plan's definition of the
ECFs controls. As to the second claim, they assert that Section
1053(a)'s anti-forfeiture provision does not apply to early
retirees. Finally, the Defendants move to strike the Plaintiffs'
class allegations, arguing that the putative class definition is an
impermissible fail-safe class.

                  Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

The parties agree that the Defendants followed the Plan; they
disagree whether the Plan violates ERISA. The issue, therefore, is
what Section 1054(c)(3) means by "actuarial[ly] equivalent." If the
term requires the use of discount-rate and mortality assumptions
that would result in a larger pension amount for early retirees
than the Plan's methodology, the Plaintiffs state a plausible claim
for relief. If not, and the Plan alone controls, then the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 1054(c)(3) claim should
be granted.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have stated a plausible
Section 1054(c)(3) claim. They allege that experts in the field
would interpret actuarial equivalence to require reasonable
assumptions, and that the ECFs used by the Defendants are unmoored
from prevailing discount rates and mortality tables. Judge Brasel
finds that that is a plausible allegation that the Defendants
violated Section 1054(c)(3).

Again, the Court recognizes that no tax regulation requires
reasonable assumptions in the early-retirement context at issue,
even if such a requirement would be more consistent with ERISA's
structure and purpose. The Court also recognizes that discovery may
reveal that the actuarial industry does not interpret actuarial
equivalence to require calculating benefits with reasonable rates
and mortality figures. But that is an issue best left for a court
equipped with well-developed record.

For now, accepting the Plaintiffs' factual allegations as true,
they have stated a plausible claim, Judge Brasel points out.

The Defendants next argue that the Complaint does not allege a
violation of Section 1053(a), ERISA's anti-forfeiture provision.

The Court agrees with the reasoning in Masten v. Metro. Life Ins.
and DuBuske v. PepsiCo, Inc. Under Section 1053(a)(2)(A)(ii),
retirees with at least five years of employment have "a
nonforfeitable right to 100 percent of the employee's accrued
benefit derived from employer contributions."

Contrary to the Defendants' suggestion, Judge Brasel opines that
Section 1053(a)(2)(A)(ii)'s text does not limit its applicability
to only those who reach "normal retirement age." The Plaintiffs
have stated a plausible claim to relief under Section
1053(a)(2)(A)(ii), so the Court, therefore, denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss that claim.

         Defendants' Motion to Strike Class Allegations

The Plaintiffs bring a putative Rule 23 class action on behalf of
themselves and the following class definition:

     All participants in the Plans, or their beneficiaries, (1)
     whose [benefit commencement date] is on or before March 1,
     2016; (2) who received Part B annuity benefits that were
     reduced by the Part B ECFs; and (3) where the actuarial
     present value of their annuity benefit as of [benefit
     commencement date] was less than the actuarial present value
     of their age-65 [single life annuity] using the applicable
     Treasury Assumptions as of each participant's [benefit
     commencement date]. Excluded from the Class are Defendants
     and any individuals who are subsequently to be determined to
     be fiduciaries of the Plans.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' class definition is an
impermissible fail-safe class. A fail-safe class is one that would
allow putative class members to seek a remedy but not be bound by
an adverse judgment--either those class members win or, by virtue
of losing, they are not in the class and are not bound (Vogt v.
State Farm Life Ins., 963 F.3d 753, 768 (8th Cir. 2020)).

Judge Brasel holds that it is premature to strike the Plaintiffs'
allegations at this point in the litigation. The Plaintiffs limit
putative class membership to those Plan participants whose benefits
are "less than" what they would have received had the Defendants
used the Treasury's assumptions

Assuming the Plaintiffs' factual allegations are true, and the
Treasury assumptions are reasonable, the Defendants are correct
that the Plaintiffs' putative class includes only those Plan
participants, who will prevail on the merits, Judge Brasel notes.
Participants are either in the Plaintiffs' class with a successful
ERISA claim, or they are outside the class, not bound by the
Court's judgment, and free to pursue their own claim against the
Defendants. But that is not an impermissible fail-safe class, Judge
Brasel points out.

Class membership does not depend on the Court's finding of
liability--the Court need not resolve a merits question to
determine whether a participant is in the class. Rather, membership
is based on objective criteria--present value calculations--that
require no legal analysis. The Court, therefore, denies the
Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations as
premature.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 17, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5b6evm73 from Leagle.com.


YANFENG US: Class Settlement in Dover Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case JASON DOVER, et al., Plaintiffs v. YANFENG US
AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR SYSTEMS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-11643 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Terrence G. Berg of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan grants the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement Agreement.

The Plaintiffs sued the Defendants for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties related to the management of the Yanfeng
Automotive Interior Systems Savings and Investment 401(k) Plan in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The parties have presented for the Court's approval a Settlement
Agreement concerning the claims remaining.

For settlement purposes only, the class is defined as: All
participants and beneficiaries of the Yanfeng Automotive Interior
Systems and Investment 401(k) Plan from Jan. 1, 2018 through Oct.
13, 2022, the date of the original order granting preliminarily
approval.

Plaintiffs Jason Dover, Eric Simpson, and Steven Leggett are
preliminarily certified as the Class Representatives. Edelson
Lechtzin LLP and Fink Bressack LLP are appointed as the Class
Counsel.

Judge Berg preliminarily approves the settlement, finding that the
Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests
of the Class Members. At the parties' suggestion, he approves
Angeion Group as the Settlement Administrator.

The Parties have presented to the Court a proposed Notice regarding
the Settlement and a plan for mailing the Notice to Class Members
and Judge Berg approves it, finding that it is fair and adequate.
He further approves the mailing plan, finding that first-class
mailing of the contents of the Proposed Notice to Class Members
complies fully with the requirements of Rule 23 and due process and
constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances.

The Settlement Administrator will send Notice by first class mail
to each Class Member within 45 calendar days of the date of the
Order based on data provided by the Plan's recordkeeper. The
Notices will be mailed to the last known address of each Class
Member provided by the Plan's recordkeeper (or its designee),
unless an updated address is obtained by the Settlement
Administrator through its efforts to verify the last known. The
Settlement Administrator will use commercially reasonable efforts
to locate Class Members whose Settlement Notices are returned and
re-mail such documents one additional time.

Additionally, before Notices are sent to the Class Members, the
Settlement Administrator will establish a settlement website and
telephone support line. It will post a copy of the Settlement
Notice on the settlement website.

Objections to the Settlement, if any, must be post-marked and sent
to the Court and the attorneys for the parties no later than 28
calendar days prior to the scheduled Final Approval Hearing. Class
Members who wish to speak at the Final Fairness hearing concerning
any part of the proposed settlement will file and serve a Notice of
Intent to Appear at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Responses
to the Objections and Final Approval Motion must be filed at least
14 calendar days before the Final Approval Hearing. The Plaintiffs
will file a Final Approval Motion at least 14 calendar days before
the Final Approval Hearing.

The Final Approval Hearing will be held on Feb. 22, 2023. The Court
reserves the right to adjourn, modify, or continue the Final
Approval Hearing. The Settlement Administrator will provide notice
to the Class Members of any scheduling changes via the Settlement
Website.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Amended Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2e7hykxm from Leagle.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 ***