/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221104.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 4, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 215

                            Headlines

ALAMEDA HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Wright Suit Claims
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Buechler Sues Over Mislabeled Guoda Cheese
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Court Okays Settlement in Martin v. Safeway
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Tarrant, Santa Fe, Wa. Cty Suits in Discovery
ALBERTSONS COS: Faces Class Action Over Gouda Cheese Mislabeling

ALLIANCEONE INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Monique Class Suit
ALLSTATE FIRE: Judge Approves Sales Tax Class Action Settlement
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces GBP900-Mil. Class Action Over Buy Box Feature
AQUINAS CAPITAL: Faces Reyes Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
ARGO GROUP: Faces Police & Fire Suit Over Drop in Share Price

BAIRD DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages Under FLSA
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Refuses to Review July Order in Brooks Suit
BANK OF UTAH: More Time to File Class Cert. Reply Brief Sought
BANK OF UTAH: Must File Class Cert. Reply Brief by Nov. 7
BAUER HOCKEY: Court Conditionally Certifies Employee Collective

BEDDINGFIELD DRUGS: Barbour Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT
BEST BUY: Faces Leflar Suit Over Misleading Product Warranties
BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Certification of Investor Class Sought
BLACKOXYGEN ORGANICS: Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Bolling Sues Over Deceptive Added Protection Plans

BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Marler & Crumpton Suits
CALIFORNIA: College Professors File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
CARE4ALL CAREGIVERS: Smith's Counsel to Serve Class Notice
CAREFUSION RESOURCES: Zakay Law Group Files Labor Class Action
CASE WESTERN: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to June 9, 2023

CATHOLIC SUPPLY: Basil's Filings Won't Be Considered in Dicks Suit
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Certify Care Coordinator Class
CENTESSA PHARMACEUTICALS: Fernandes Suit Moved to S.D.N.Y.
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Gelt Seeks to Certify Class of Investors
COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION: Blackwell Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd

COMPANA PET: Seeks Dismissal of Doggie Dailies Class Action Suit
COMPASS MINERALS: Local 295 Sues Over Drop in Share Price
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ortiz Suit Claims
CORNWELL QUALITY: Salinas Wins Class Certification Bid
CRST EXPEDITED: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Certification Order

DAVIS OIL: Joint Bid for Class Cert & Settlement Approval Filed
DAVITA INC: Bowling Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Laptop Battery Defects
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Hopkins Suit Over Mislabeled Laptops
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Trial Set in Workers' Wage Class Action Suit

DREAMFIELDS BRANDS: Sued Over Mislabeled Jeeter Cannabis Prerolls
EL DORADO OIL: Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action in Keller
EMPYREAN SERVICES: Initial Scheduling Order Entered in Zimbrich
ENSERVCO CORPORATION: Awaits Filing of Amended Securities Suit
EQUIFAX INFO: Seeks to Amend Class Definition in Rivera Suit

FLAGSTAR BANK: Nonparty Pinnacle Seeks to Quash Notice of Subpoena
GOOGLE LLC: Segal Sues Over Unauthorized Biometric Data Collection
GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Underpays Account Executives, Gregory Claims
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: 2nd Amended Case Mng't, Scheduling Order Entered
HP INC: Cepelak Loses Class Certification Bid

INDEPENDENT BANK: Fourth Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Grice
IQVIA INC: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Fischbein Suit
KEYBANK NATIONAL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Brouty Claims
LAS DELICIAS: Amador Sues Over Production Staff's Unpaid Overtime
LOMPOC, CA: Manatt Secures Settlement in Pro Bono Class Action

MAJOR LEAGUE: Discloses Private Info to Third Party, Hayes Claims
MAMMOTH TECH: Leininger Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
MARYLAND: Police Officers File Race Discrimination Class Action
MEDCAN HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Underpayment of Vacation Pay
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Ponce Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Wins Summary Judgment v. Vance, et al.
MUIR MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Medical Info, Class Action Suit Says
MUSIC BOX ATTIC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MY 12 STEP STORE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NATIONAL GRID: Sunvestment Files Suit in N.D. New York

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in McFadden
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT: Dryer Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
NETGEAR INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Claims
NEW ALLIANCE: Mercado Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Owed
NO'EAU DESIGNERS: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ONE GROUP: Fails to Pay Servers, Bartenders Minimum Wage Under FLSA
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Violations
PALEOVALLEY LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PALETTE AND PARLOR: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PARK PLACE: Lovell Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action

PENNSYLVANIA: Beadle Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Student Loans
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Discloses Subscribers' Info, Braun Claims
PHILADELPHIA: Sargent Loses Renewed Bid for Class Certification
POLY-WOOD LLC: Giannaros Files Bid to Certify Class
PRO CUSTOM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sacca Suit Alleges

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Smith Seeks Extension to File Class Status Bid
PUZZLE WAREHOUSE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Seeks Reconsideration of Oct. 5 Order
RADIO SYSTEMS: Hernandez Files Suit in C.D. California
RED CRAB: Court Tosses Wisdom Bid for Class Certification

REED HEIN: Court Grants Agreed Bid to Certify Class in Adolph Suit
SANDY SPIN SLADE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SEPHORA USA: Wiretaps Sephora.com Visitors, Martin Suit Claims
SFDISPLAY.COM LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SH GROUP OPERATIONS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in C.D. California

SHADES OF AFRIKA: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHARKCLEAN LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHAY HUGHES: Court Dismisses Bartole Class Action
SHUMI TOYS & GIFTS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SKYBOUND LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SMASHBURGER IP: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $5.5MM
SONIC CORP: Court Approves Class Settlement in Data Breach Suit
SOUTHWELLNESS LLC: Lewis Files Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: More Time to File for Class Cert Bid Sought
SPB HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Tipped Employees' Minimum Wages

SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Seibert Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
STARKIST CO: Bid for State Law Claims Summary Judgment Partly OK'd
SUBWAY IP: Faces DeLaRosa Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
SUE FISHER KING: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SWEET HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Suit Alleges

TA OPERATING: Main Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
TCP HOT:  Class Action Settlement in Delcid Gets Initial Nod
THOMPSON SUSKIND: Quiroz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
THORLEY INDUSTRIES: Scales Files Suit in N.D. California
TOTAL LONGTERM CARE: Gonzales Suit Removed to C.D. California

TRIQUEST INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ULTA SALON: Brito Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
UN DEUX TROIS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UOMO SPORT: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

US RADIOLOGY: J-Hanna Files Suit in D. Delaware
VDC USA INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VIVINT INC: Seeks to Strike Certain Allegations from Rainey Suit
VOLCOM LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VPC PIZZA MANAGEMENT: Ulrich Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages

W.M. BARR & COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
WALKME INC: Reece Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WHITE PLAINS: Blit Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
YOUTUBE LLC: Schneider, et al., Seek Rule 23 Class Certification

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $52MM Reserves as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Reports $1.39BB Asbestos Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $958MM Liability at Sept. 30


                            *********

ALAMEDA HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Wright Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
AHMED DEMETRIUS WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION, Case No.
22CV020269 (Cal. Super., Oct. 21, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard its
patients' Protected Health Information (PHI), such as patient ID's,
clinical or treatment information, and health insurance or claims
information, and its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Personally Identifiable Information (PII) that the Defendant
required patients to provide, including name and date of birth.

On February 23, 2022, the Defendant became aware of suspicious
activity involving an employee's email account.

On March 22, 2022, the Defendant determined after investigating
that unauthorized third parties from outside Alameda could remotely
access email accounts of Alameda employees from May 2020 through
March 2022.

On or May 18, 2022, Alameda determined that patient data,
specifically, the Plaintiff's data, was compromised in this
incident, the suit claims. The Defendant's investigation confirmed
that the PHI and PII compromised in the Data Breach included the
Plaintiff and approximately 90,000 other individuals, the suit
says. Accordingly, the healthcare-specific data compromised is PHI
as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (HIPAAP).

The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members PII and PHI, and failed to even encrypt or redact this
highly sensitive information, the suit contends.

Alameda Health is a California nonprofit corporation with its
principal office located in Oakland, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Nelson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          280 South Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (858) 209-6941
          E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com;

                - and -

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          Zachary T. Gershman, Esq.
          LEBE LAW APLC
          777 S. Alameda St.
          Los Angeles CA, 90021
          Telephone: (213) 444-1973
          E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
                  Zachary@lebelaw.com

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Buechler Sues Over Mislabeled Guoda Cheese
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BUECHLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02717 (D. Md., Oct. 21, 2022)
alleges that the Defendants manufactures, labels, markets, and
sells mislabeled slices of pasteurized processed Gouda cheese
product purporting to get its smoked taste and darker color
entirely from being smoked, under its Lucerne brand ("Product").

According to the complaint, the Product's representation that it is
"Smoked" instead of getting its smoked taste from added smoke
flavor violates the Consumer Protection Laws, which deems a food
misbranded when the label contains a statement that is "false or
misleading in any particular." The front label does not disclose
that the Product's smoked flavor is from liquid smoke, prepared by
pyrolysis of hardwood sawdust, instead of being smoked over
hardwoods. The value of the Product that the Plaintiff purchased
was materially less than its value as represented by the Defendant.
Had the Plaintiff and proposed Class Members known the truth, they
would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it,
says the suit.

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC. retails food and drugs products. The
Company distributes fruits, vegetables, canned items, medicines,
and other related goods. Albertsons serves customers in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Court Okays Settlement in Martin v. Safeway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 10, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2022, that the
court approved the negotiated settlement of the putative class
action complaint captioned Martin v. Safeway on May 5, 2022.

On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Martin
v. Safeway was filed in the California Superior Court for the
County of Alameda, alleging the Company failed to comply with the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") by printing
receipts that failed to adequately mask payment card numbers as
required by FACTA. The plaintiff claims the violation was "willful"
and exposes the Company to statutory damages provided for in FACTA.


On January 8, 2020, the Company commenced mediation discussions
with plaintiff's counsel and reached a settlement in principle on
February 24, 2020.

On May 5, 2022, the court approved the negotiated settlement.
Pursuant to the settlement, funds have been paid to a claims
administrator, who will oversee the processing of claims.

Albertsons Companies, Inc. is an American grocery company founded
and headquartered in Boise, Idaho.

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Tarrant, Santa Fe, Wa. Cty Suits in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 10, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2022, that cases
filed by Tarrant County (Texas), Santa Fe County (New Mexico), and
Washington County (Utah) are proceeding through discovery in the
Opioid Litigation.

The Company is one of dozens of companies that have been named in
various lawsuits alleging that defendants contributed to the
national opioid epidemic. At present, the Company is named in over
100 suits pending in various state courts as well as in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, where over
2,000 cases have been consolidated as Multi-District Litigation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.

Most of these cases have been stayed pending bellwether trials. At
present, the most active case is a matter in New Mexico state court
where trial began on September 6, 2022. Prior to the start of
trial, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the
New Mexico matter. The parties are presently working to finalize
the terms of that New Mexico settlement. The Company has also
reached an agreement in principle to settle a matter pending in
Nevada state court. The parties are presently working to finalize
the terms of that Nevada settlement.

The Company has recorded an estimated liability for these pending
settlements. For the remaining claims, the Company believes that it
has substantial factual and legal defenses to these claims, and is
vigorously defending these matters.

Cases filed by Tarrant County (Texas), Santa Fe County (New
Mexico), and Washington County (Utah) are proceeding through
discovery. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company is unable
to determine the probability of the outcome of these remaining
matters or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any.

Albertsons Companies, Inc. is an American grocery company founded
and headquartered in Boise, Idaho.

ALBERTSONS COS: Faces Class Action Over Gouda Cheese Mislabeling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims that the front label of Albertsons'
Lucerne-brand pasteurized processed gouda cheese product unlawfully
fails to reveal that the item's smoked taste comes from added smoke
flavoring, not real smoke exposure.

The 18-page case alleges the gouda is misleadingly labeled as
"[s]moked" given that the product is not exposed to smoke but
instead enhanced by liquid smoke flavor prepared by advanced
chemistry and synthetic additives.

Per the complaint, Albertsons Companies has run afoul of federal
and state labeling regulations by failing to disclose the source of
the gouda's main flavor on the front label. The filing asserts that
to comply with these regulations, the product's front label should
read "with added smoke flavor," "[with] natural smoke flavor," or
"flavor added," since its characterizing flavor is derived from
liquid smoke.

Instead, Albertsons Companies hides the disclosure about the smoke
flavor additive in the back label ingredients list, the complaint
relays.

According to the case, the absence of these required terms from the
front label is likely to mislead consumers since the product
appears identical to varieties of gouda cheese that get their
flavor from actually being smoked, "even though they are not equal
in quality."

The complaint also contend that Albertsons Companies further
misrepresents its product by using annatto color, which gives it a
darker hue that consumers associate with smoked cheese products.

Albertsons' alleged misconduct allows it to sell the Lucerne gouda
cheese product at a higher price, especially since consumer trends
show that buyers are "increasingly seeking foods that get their
taste only from a characterizing ingredient or a natural processing
method," the case argues. Likewise, cheese industry experts have
observed that "smoked cheeses are on the rise."

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Maryland, Alaska, Arizona,
the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming who purchased Lucerne
pasteurized processed Gouda cheese during the applicable statute of
limitations period. [GN]

ALLIANCEONE INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Monique Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JNECIA MONIQUE MCCLENTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLIANCEONE INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:22-cv-01180-MMA-BLM (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara L. Major entered a scheduling order
regulating discovery and other pre-trial proceedings as follows:

    1. The parties must file a joint motion for a protective
       order, which includes the terms of their agreement for
       handling confidential documents and information, on or
       before Nov. 7, 2022.

    2. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings,
       or to file additional pleadings must be filed by
       Dec. 16, 2022.

    3. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
       certification on or before March 17, 2023.

    4. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties on
       or before April 14, 2023.

AllianceOne provides full cycle, accounts receivable management
services in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W93m5f at no extra charge.[CC]

ALLSTATE FIRE: Judge Approves Sales Tax Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Lopez, writing for USA Herald, reports that U.S. District
Judge Karen Spencer Marston approved a class action settlement
agreement regarding the reimbursement of sales taxes that were
charged to customers with leased vehicles that were completely
totaled. Judge Marston said, "The settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate."

This is the case of Erby v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance
Co., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. According to the complaint, the plaintiff, Michael
Erby, and the other class members filed a lawsuit against Allstate
Fire and Casualty Insurance alleging that Allstate failed to
reimburse customers for the full sales tax on leased vehicles that
were totaled in collisions.

According to the settlement agreement, Allstate will payout the
unpaid sales tax to each member of the class who submits a valid
claim. Under the agreement, class members include individuals who
from January 2021 to April 2022 "submitted a private-passenger auto
physical damage claim for a leased vehicle under an Allstate
Pennsylvania policy" where the total loss claim payment failed to
include the full sales tax.

Pursuant to court documents, the amount due to each class member
will be calculated by determining the full sales tax for the
total-loss vehicle and subtracting the amount of the sales tax that
was included in any previous payment that was made by Allstate on
the claim, per court documents.

Michael Erby and the class members are represented by Daniel Levin
of Levin Sedran & Berman, Aaron Rihn of Robert Peirce & Associates
PC, and Derrek Cummings of Weisberg Cummings PC, and in this case,
they were awarded more than $730,000 in attorney fees and costs.

The court also awarded $4,500 to Michael Erby, the class
representative, as a service award, even though he requested
$6,500. Judge Marston said that Erby's proposed $6,500 service
award was "slightly high" in considering his level of involvement
in the class action lawsuit.

The court pointed out that he refused to sit for a deposition and
did not help review any discovery. Judge Marston said, "At bottom,
there is no indication that he was particularly involved in this
litigation, other than at its initiation."

In 2018, Erby filed a lawsuit against Allstate, alleging a breach
of contract and accusing Allstate of violating Pennsylvania's
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Court documents reveal that in August 2016 Erby's Honda Accord was
hit by a Cadillac insured by Allstate, however, the cost to repair
the vehicle was too high. Allstate eventually agreed to settle his
claim for more than $19,000 dollars, but that did not include sales
tax for his totaled vehicle. [GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Faces GBP900-Mil. Class Action Over Buy Box Feature
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gangcuangco, writing for Business Insurance UK, reports that
e-commerce giant Amazon, which recently made headlines for its
foray into the British insurance comparison market, is now facing a
GBP900 million demand to compensate UK customers in what has been
described as a "landmark claim" against its retail operations.

In a release, Hausfeld & Co LLP said Amazon is accused of
unlawfully abusing its dominant position, in supposed breach of
section 18 of the UK Competition Act 1998 and Article 102 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The firm noted: "According to the claim, Amazon steers potential
purchasers to products which are not designed to be the best offers
for consumers. Rather, the so-called ‘Buy Box' offers are
systematically biased to favour goods sold by Amazon itself as part
of its retail business; and/or by third-party sellers who pay to
use Amazon's order fulfilment and delivery services (which are a
key source of revenue for Amazon).

"Other sellers, who do not pay for Amazon's fulfilment services,
are nearly always excluded from the Buy Box, stifling their ability
to offer consumers a better deal, and leaving consumers out of
pocket. It will be alleged that Amazon uses the Buy Box feature to
manipulate consumer decision-making - directing customers to the
product featured prominently in the Buy Box, and thereby obscuring
the full range of options available to them, which may be cheaper
and/or offer greater value."

The proposed class representative in the action is Consumer &
Public Interest Network chair Julie Hunter, who is an expert in
consumer research, advocacy, and protection. Hunter is a member of
statutory body Financial Services Consumer Panel.

"Many consumers believe that Amazon offers good choice and value,
but instead it uses tricks of design to manipulate consumer choice
and direct customers towards the featured offer in its Buy Box,"
asserted Hunter. "Far from being a recommendation based on price or
quality, the Buy Box favours products sold by Amazon itself, or by
retailers who pay Amazon for handling their logistics. Other
sellers, however good their offers might be, are effectively shut
out -- relegated down-page, or hidden several clicks away in an
obscure corner of Amazon's website."

The retail titan launched the Amazon Insurance Store in the UK. The
new price comparison website was introduced with initial partners
Ageas UK, Co-op, and LV= General Insurance. There's no word as to
how the British class action might impact the new undertaking.

Meanwhile Hausfeld & Co LLP partner Lesley Hannah stated: "Most
consumers use the Buy Box when purchasing products on Amazon --
estimates range from 82% to 90%. This means that millions of
consumers have paid too much and been denied choice. This action
seeks fair redress for them."

The Competition Appeal Tribunal case in London is an opt-out
collective action. Anyone who lives in the UK and has made
purchases on Amazon.co.uk or on the Amazon app since October 2016
is an eligible member of the claimant class without having to
actively opt-in to the claim. [GN]

AQUINAS CAPITAL: Faces Reyes Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AQUINAS CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-23454-XXXX (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2022) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent telephone
solicitations to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number starting
on or about August 19, 2021, not to mention that the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number has been registered on the National Do
Not Call Registry since August 28, 2011. In addition, the Plaintiff
uses her cellular telephone number for personal purposes. The
Defendant's unsolicited text messages were purposefully to solicit
the sale of its services. However, it had caused harm to the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals in the form of
invasion of privacy, aggravation and annoyance, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint for himself and all other
similarly situated individuals seeking for an injunction requiring
the Defendant to cease all unsolicited call activity and
prohibiting the Defendant from using, or contracting the use of an
automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) without obtaining the
recipient's consent to receive calls made with such equipment. The
Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages and treble damages, and
other relief as the Court deems necessary.

Aquinas Capital Funding, LLC provides working capital to small and
medium size businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

ARGO GROUP: Faces Police & Fire Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM CITY OF DETROIT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARGO
GROUP INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LTD.; THOMAS A. BRADLEY; SCOTT KIRK;
KEVIN J. REHNBERG; MARK E. WATSON, III; and JAY S. BULLOCK,
Defendants, Case No. Case 1:22-cv-08971 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2022) is
a federal securities class action brought on behalf of investors
that purchased or otherwise acquired Argo common stock during the
period from February 13, 2018 through August 9, 2022 (the "Class
Period"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendant's violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, the Defendants
assured investors that they had closely monitored Argo's policies
and could set appropriate reserves. Defendants cultivated a
narrative that Argo had a long history of successfully managing its
reserves and the Company had a "prudent reserving philosophy."

However, this statement, and other similar ones, were false and
misleading because: (1) Argo's reserves were wholly inadequate and
its underwriting standards were not prudent as was represented;
(ii) Argo had dramatically changed its underwriting policies on
certain U.S. construction contracts as far back as 2018; and (iii)
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. Ultimately, the effects of the
changes in policies, all of which were known to Defendants during
the Class Period, led to massive and belatedly-disclosed adverse
reserve developments, says the suit.

Between February 2022, when Argo announce that its results for the
fourth quarter of 2021 would be negatively impacted by $130 to $140
million worth of adverse prior year reserve development and
non-operating charges, and August 2022, when Defendants announced
further bad news regarding the Company's U.S. casualty reserves,
Argo's share price declined precipitously, losing more than 60% in
value to date in 2022.

As a result of the Defendant's wrongful acts, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the class
of investors the Plaintiff seeks to represent has suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit added.

ARGO GROUP INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LTD. offers property casualty
insurance and reinsurance. The Company offers excess and surplus
lines, select markets, and international specialty insurance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
          Karin E. Fisch, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          Email: dberger@gelaw.com
                 kfisch@gelaw.com

BAIRD DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
AUGUSTO GUTIERREZ and WALTER ARTICA, et al, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAIRD DRYWALL &
ACOUSTIC, INC., Case No. 7:22-cv-00604-EKD (W.D. Va., Oct. 21,
2022) seek relief for claims for unpaid overtime in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This action is related to a previously-settled FLSA collective
action, Case No. 7:19-cv-882, involving the same claims and the
same central Defendant Baird.

The Plaintiffs are workers who did not participate in the
settlement agreement prior to the filing of this lawsuit and intend
to seek Court approval of the same.

The Plaintiffs bring this action as a collective action on behalf
of themselves and similarly situated laborers. The Plaintiffs ask
that if this case is not certified as a collection action they be
permitted to proceed individually with their claims.

The Plaintiffs include Augusto Gutierrez, Gilberto Andrade, Josue
Amaya, Eduardo Avila, Luis Alonso Chavez Gaytan, Juan Fernando
Corrales Garcia, Jose Guadalupe Cruz Beiza, Mario Francisco Cruz,
Mario Eliud Cruz, Yovani Espana, Jose Galeano, Anuar Garcia, Hector
Javier Garcia Marquina, Marcos Antonio Garcia, Jose Gomez,Jose Adan
Gomez, Norbert Ariel Gutierrez Quiroz, Claudia Marilys Hernandez
Moralse, Javier Martinez, Jose Marvin Mejia, Roni Mejia, Orlin
Mencia, Marcos Ochoa, Cristian Alexander Ochoa Ascencio, Ronan
Pineda, Edgardo Pineda, Arnold Pineda Garcia, Pedro Pizano, and
Marco Tercero.

Baird is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of
business in the County of Roanoke. It is a subcontractor who
contracts with general contractors on specific construction
projects.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy Coffield, Esq.
          COFFIELD PLC
          106-F Melbourne Park Circle
          Charlottesville, VA 22901
          Telephone: (434) 218-3133
          Facsimile: (434) 321-1636
          E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com

                - and –

          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, Virginia 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648-4848
          Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
          E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
                  zev@butlercurwood.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Refuses to Review July Order in Brooks Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM NORMAN BROOKS, III, Plaintiff v. BANK OF
AMERICA, NA, Defendant, Case No.: 3:20-cv-1348-RSH-BLM (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Robert S. Huie of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denies the Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's July 26, 2022 Order declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of
absent class members.

In the operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), Brooks alleges
that BofA harmed his credit by wrongfully reporting to consumer
credit reporting agencies that Brooks had filed for bankruptcy and
that his BofA account had been "included in bankruptcy." Based on
these allegations, the FAC asserts claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.
("UCL"), and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act,
Cal. Civ. Code Section 1785 et seq. ("CCRAA"), on behalf of a
putative class, as well as one individual claim under the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq.

Although the FAC includes a federal claim, it does not explicitly
allege a basis for original subject matter jurisdiction, alleging
only that supplemental jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. Section
1367. Neither side has argued that subject matter jurisdiction
exists under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d).

On April 25, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC")
why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state
law class claims. The OSC acknowledged that the Plaintiff's federal
and state claims arise from the 'common nucleus' of the Defendant's
alleged furnishing of inaccurate information to credit reporting
agencies based on its bankruptcy reporting procedures, but that the
class claims have the potential to predominate over the Plaintiff's
individual FCRA claim.

In its Response to the OSC, BofA argued that while there is
original subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question,
the Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over Brooks'
individual claims on the basis of diversity under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(a) because Brooks and BofA are diverse and more than $75,000
is in controversy on the Plaintiff's individual claims alone. It
then contended that the Court may exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the claims of absent class members in a case
where the diverse named plaintiff's claims exceed $75,000. It
concluded only that the Court should find that it has subject
matter jurisdiction based on diversity over the Plaintiff's
individual claims.

In his Response to the OSC, the Plaintiff agreed that it is within
the Court's discretion and would be appropriate in this context for
the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
state law claims.

Based on the Parties' responses, the Court held that: (1) there is
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) over the
Plaintiff's individual claims; and (2) the state law claims of
absent class members substantially predominate over Brooks'
individual claims. It therefore declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims of absent class members.
Accordingly, it dismissed the absent class members' claims without
prejudice and ordered that this action should proceed as an
individual action on the Plaintiff's claims under the UCL, CCRAA,
and FCRA.

The Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Court's Order.
Notably, he does not argue that the Court erred by declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the absent class members'
claims. Rather, he argues that the Court should also dismiss his
individual state law claims so that he may re-file them as class
claims in state court.

Judge Huie concludes that the Court's jurisdiction over the absent
class members' claims is supplemental under 28 U.S.C. Section
1367(a). Subpart (c) of Section 1367 gives the Court discretion to
decline to exercise such jurisdiction and the Court has exercised
that discretion. On the other hand, he says, the Court's
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' individual state law claims is
based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). The Court does
not have discretion to decline to exercise diversity jurisdiction.
Therefore, it would be error for it to dismiss the Plaintiff's
individual state law claims simply because it has declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the absent class members'
state law claims.

For these reasons, Judge Huie denies the Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration.

To be clear, his decision is not, as the Plaintiff contends,
dispositive of class certification. Judge Huie finds only that the
claims over which it has supplemental jurisdiction (i.e., the
claims of "hundreds or thousands" of absent class members) would
substantially predominate the claims over which the Court has
original diversity jurisdiction (i.e., the Plaintiff's individual
claims).

For that reason, the Court is exercising its discretion under 28
U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(2) to decline supplemental jurisdiction. It
is not deciding whether the Plaintiff can bring the state law
claims on behalf of a class. Rather, it is declining to exercise
the jurisdiction that would permit the Court to make such a
decision in the first instance.

Judge Huie holds that the Court simply lacks the discretion to
provide the Plaintiff with the disposition he seeks in his Motion,
which is for the Court to decline to exercise subject matter
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's individual state law claims. If
the Plaintiff no longer wishes to proceed with his individual state
law claims in federal court, he may file a motion to dismiss them
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2s3e8j34 from Leagle.com.


BANK OF UTAH: More Time to File Class Cert. Reply Brief Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sun Life Assurance Company
of Canada v. Bank of Utah, Case No. 1:21-cv-03973-LMM (N.D. Ga.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline
in this case for Bank of Utah to file its reply brief in further
support of its Motion for Class Certification, which is one week
after the deadline for Sun Life to serve its supplemental response
to Interrogatory No. 1 in accordance with the Court's October 17,
2022 Order.

On September 15, 2022, the Court granted Sun Life's motion for
extension of time, setting Sun Life's deadline to file its
opposition brief to October 5, 2022 and Bank of Utah's deadline to
file its reply brief to October 26, 2022.

On October 7, two days after Sun Life filed its opposition brief,
Bank of Utah wrote to the Court to request an expedited conference
regarding a discovery dispute regarding Sun Life's response to
Interrogatory No. 1, which is relevant to Sun Life's opposition
arguments about the Rule 23(a) numerosity requirement. On October
17, 2022, after reviewing the parties' e-mail summaries of their
positions, the Court ordered Sun Life to provide a supplemental
response to Interrogatory No. 1 "within 14 days."

The Court's Order stated that if Bank of Utah "needs an extension
of the deadline to respond to the pending motion based on this
issue, they are to contact the Court with a motion and proposed
order."

Sun Life is a financial services company.

Bank of Utah is a federally-insured community bank, with corporate
headquarters in Ogden, Utah.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gVMu1H at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Bank of Utah,
are:

          Stephanie Spies, Esq.
          Seth Ard, Esq.
          Steven Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimike: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com
                  sspies@susmangodfrey.com
                  ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Ashe III, Esq.
          Amanda Kay Seals, Esq.
          BONDURANT MIXSON &
          ELMORE LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-4100
          Facsimile: (404) 881-4111
          E-mail: ashe@bmelaw.com
                  seals@bmelaw.com

BANK OF UTAH: Must File Class Cert. Reply Brief by Nov. 7
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sun Life Assurance Company
of Canada v. Bank of Utah, Case No. 1:21-cv-03973-LMM (N.D. Ga.),
the Court entered an order extending the deadline in this case for
Bank of Utah to file its reply brief in further support of its
Motion for Class Certification to November 7, 2022.

On September 15, 2022, the Court granted Sun Life's motion for
extension of time, setting Sun Life's deadline to file its
opposition brief to October 5, 2022 and Bank of Utah's deadline to
file its reply brief to October 26, 2022.

On October 7, two days after Sun Life filed its opposition brief,
Bank of Utah wrote to the Court to request an expedited conference
regarding a discovery dispute regarding Sun Life's response to
Interrogatory No. 1, which is relevant to Sun Life's
opposition arguments about the Rule 23(a) numerosity requirement.
On October 17, 2022, after reviewing the parties' e-mail summaries
of their positions, the Court ordered Sun Life to provide a
supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 1 "within 14 days."

The Court's Order stated that if Bank of Utah "needs an extension
of the deadline to respond to the pending motion based on this
issue, they are to contact the Court with a motion and proposed
order."

Sun Life is a financial services company.

Bank of Utah is a federally-insured community bank, with corporate
headquarters in Ogden, Utah.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FsiOmR at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Bank of Utah,
are:

          Stephanie Spies, Esq.
          Seth Ard, Esq.
          Steven Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimike: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com
                  sspies@susmangodfrey.com
                  ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Ashe III, Esq.
          Amanda Kay Seals, Esq.
          BONDURANT MIXSON &
          ELMORE LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-4100
          Facsimile: (404) 881-4111
          E-mail: ashe@bmelaw.com
                  seals@bmelaw.com

BAUER HOCKEY: Court Conditionally Certifies Employee Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brooks Barber v. Bauer
Hockey, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00742-SE (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge
Samantha D. Elliott entered an order granting the plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification of a collective action
pursuant to section 216(b), with the exception of the requested
notice procedure.

The following collective is conditionally certified:

   "All individuals who were employed by Bauer Hockey, LLC
   furloughed beginning on or about April 13, 2020 through on or
   about June 8, 2020 and did not receive minimum wage for all
   work completed for Bauer's benefit, and who elect to join
   this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)."

Because Barber has met his burden to show that the proposed members
of the collective are similarly situated enough to receive notice
of this action, the court grants Barber's motion.

Brooks Barber filed a putative collective action on behalf of
himself and similarly situated employees and former employees of
Bauer, alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
and New Hampshire state law.

Barber worked at Bauer as part of the Elite Athlete Services (EAS)
team from the summer of 2016 until February 24, 2021. Beginning on
April 13, 2020, Bauer put Barber and other employees, including
other members of the EAS team, on furlough without pay because of
the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bauer makes and sells ice hockey equipment.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nm1B0y at no extra charge.[CC]

BEDDINGFIELD DRUGS: Barbour Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NEEDHAM CURTIS BARBOUR; and EDWARD BRIAN DUNN, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BEDDINGFIELD DRUGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00422-D
(E.D.N.C., Oct. 19, 2022) seeks compensation for Defendant's
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina
Wage and Hour Act by failing to pay wages and/or overtime wages
despite the fact that Plaintiff and those similarly situated
regularly worked over 40 hours in a single work week.

Plaintiffs Barbour and Dunn were employed by the Defendants as
delivery drivers from May of 2012 through May of 2021 and from 2014
through January of 2020, respectively.

Beddingfield Drugs is a pharmaceutical provider that employs
delivery drivers to provide pharmaceutical delivery services to its
customers in various parts of North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam W. Ray, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & RAY, PLLC
          555 Fayetteville St., Ste. 201
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (888) 315-3841
          Facsimile: (303) 502-5821
          E-mail: aray@williamsray.com

BEST BUY: Faces Leflar Suit Over Misleading Product Warranties
--------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH LEFLAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BUY STORES, LP., Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-01022-BSM (Ark., Cir., Lonoke Cty., Oct. 21, 2022) is an
action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief curtaining the
unlawful business practices related to consumer warranties for
products sold by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite its obligations
under federal laws, the Defendant failed to provide consumers with
access to written warranties, prior to sale, in a manner that
complies with the Pre-Sale Availability Rule.

The Defendant's noncompliance has a self-serving motive. The
Defendant offers its own "protection plan" or extended warranty to
consumers at the point of sale, which provide coverage that is
duplicative of the free manufacturer's warranty that already comes
with the product. If  the consumer is not made aware  of  this
warranty, or is prohibited from learning of the warranty's specific
terms until after the point of sale, then he or she is more likely
to buy the Defendant's duplicative "protection plan," says the
suit.

BEST BUY STORES, L.P. was founded in 2004. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of products by television,
catalog, and mail-order. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Slade, Esq.
          Brandon Haubert, Esq.
          WHLAW
          1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745
          Telephone: (501) 891-6000
          Facsimile: (501) 222-3027
          Email: slade@wh.law
                 brandon@wh.law

               - and -

          Jerry Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY LAW FIRM, PA
          118 N. Center
          P.O.Box500
          Lonoke, AR 72086
          Telephone: (501) 676-5770
          Facsimile: (501) 676-7807
          Email: jkelly@kellylawfirm.net

BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Certification of Investor Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL CLASS ACTION
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, , Case No. 3:20-cv-06719-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), the Lead Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of investors in the common stock of
      BioMarin;

   2. appointing ATP as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as
      Class Counsel.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants assured investors
BioMarin was "working very closely" and "quite collaboratively"
with the FDA in connection with the valrox application, that the
Company was "tracking to" or 17 of approval milestones, and,
critically, that the Preapproval Inspection would occur in the
second quarter of 2020.

The action arises from the Defendants' false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning BioMarin's application to the
FDA seeking approval to market the Company’s most important drug
product during the Class Period, a gene therapy for hemophilia
called valrox. Investors were deeply focused on the progress of the
FDA's review, and, in particular, the successful completion of a
required regulatory inspection of BioMarin's new manufacturing
facility.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SEBWB2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class, are:

          Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
          Salvatore Graziano, Esq.
          Jeroen Van Kwawegen, Esq.
          Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq.
          Abe Alexander, Esq.
          William E. Freeland, Esq.
          Thomas Z. Sperber, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
          & GROSSMANN LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 819-3470
          E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
                  salvatore@blbglaw.com
                  jeroen@blbglaw.com
                  katiem@blbglaw.com
                  abe.alexander@blbglaw.com
                  billy.freeland@blbglaw.com
                  thomas.sperber@blbglaw.com

BLACKOXYGEN ORGANICS: Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE MCMONIGLE, et al.,
v. BLACKOXYGEN ORGANICS USA, INC., and MARC SAINT-ONGE, Case No.
1:21-cv-04790-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May
entered an order granting in part and denying in part uncontested
motion for class certification.

This lawsuit arises out of the allegedly unlawful marketing and
sale of BlackOxygen brand nutritional supplements.

The Plaintiffs and each proposed class member are purchasers of the
products. The uncontested facts establish that:

   (1) the subject supplements were specifically marketed for
       use by adults, children, and pregnant or nursing women;

   (2) the products at issue contain unsafe levels of toxic
       heavy metals that render them unsafe and unfit for their
       intended use; and

   (3) the products were therefore worthless.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes:

   1. All residents of Georgia with a confirmed purchase of
      BlackOxygen Tablets and/or BlackOxygen Powders products
      from November 19, 2019, through [Plaintiffs filed suit on
      November 19, 2021]; and

   2. All residents of the United States with a confirmed
      purchase of BlackOxygen Tablets and/or BlackOxygen Powders
      products from November 19, 2019, through [November 19,
      2021].

The Plaintiffs filed the motion for class certification on June 21,
2022. No response was filed, and, on July 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs'
motion was submitted for evaluation by this Court. Upon initial
review of the motion, the Court questioned the validity of service
of process upon certain defendants, issued an Order to Show Cause,
and subsequently vacated the entry of default entered against
11578243 Canada, Inc., and Carlo Garibaldi and dismissed those
defendants from the lawsuit.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dxb5Tb at no extra charge.[CC]

BOB'S DISCOUNT: Bolling Sues Over Deceptive Added Protection Plans
------------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Bolling, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-06312 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for breaches of express warranty, implied
warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; bad faith insurance denial; fraud;
unjust enrichment; and violations of the New York General Business
Law and State Consumer Fraud Acts.

Bob's Discount Furniture markets, promotes, and sells furniture
with added protection plans known as "Goof Proof." The Defendant
describes Goof Proof as "the best way to protect your investment
from a wide variety of accidents for five years." Protection
against accidents is the function of insurance, even though Goof
Proof is self-described as a service contract.

According to the complaint, Defendant's sale of furniture with
added coverage only for accidental damage falls outside of a
typical service contract. The Defendant denies claims based on
customer misuse, even where that misuse may have occurred
unintentionally, and is unexpected or unforeseen, which is the
definition of an accident. Customers submit pictures of the items
for which coverage is sought, and Defendant identifies other
markings or rips, even in other areas of the furniture, and deny
claims on this basis. The Defendant has not reasonably defined what
types of stains, rips, etc., are "excessive" and the application of
this criteria results in denial of valid claims, says the suit.

The Plaintiff purchased a Calvin sofa/loveseat combo for $999, and
Goof Proof for $99.99, from Defendant's website, MyBobs.com on
February 24, 2022. In August 2022, Plaintiff submitted a claim for
her Calvin sofa, because a sofa cushion had suffered an accidental
tear, and was assigned claim number 1312424. The claim was
allegedly denied on the basis that the damage caused was due to the
normal or intended use of the items and not an accidental
occurrence.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

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

BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Marler & Crumpton Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, MARLER v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.,
SECTION "A". CRUMPTON v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.,
SECTION "A," Civil Action Nos. 17-3206, 17-3527 (E.D. La.), Judge
Jay C. Zainey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana grants the Defendants' Motions in Limine and Motions
for Summary Judgment.

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

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

From the inception of the severed B3 cases, it has been understood
that to prevail B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the response. The plaintiff's burden with respect to
causation in a toxic tort case involves proof of both general
causation and specific causation. General causation is whether a
substance is capable of causing a particular injury or condition in
the general population. Specific causation is whether a substance
caused a particular individual's injury, i.e., the plaintiff's
injury. If the plaintiff's case fails at the first-step of
producing admissible evidence as to general causation, then the
issue of specific causation is rendered moot.

In each of the hundreds of B3 cases that were reassigned from MDL
2179 to the judges of this district, the plaintiff attempted to
prove both general and specific causation by relying on expert
medical doctor, Jerald Cook, M.D. Dr. Cook's expert report, of
which there have been several versions, has been described by
another judge as "an omnibus, non-case specific general causation
expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs."
Unfortunately, no version of Dr. Cook's report has been accepted in
this district.

The motions in limine in the captioned cases pertain to the
Plaintiffs' use of Dr. Cook's report, and the testimony that would
derive from it at trial, as evidence of both general and specific
causation. The Movants seek to exclude Dr. Cook's opinions on
various grounds including the principles espoused in Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

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

Judge Zainey denies the motion for extension of deadlines filed in
the Crumpton case, 17-3527.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3pxf22kk from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: College Professors File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Peele, writing for EdSource, reports that seven part-time
community college professors across California have sued eight
local districts where they teach and the state, claiming their job
requires that they work unpaid hours preparing lessons, grading and
meeting with students, court records show.

They are demanding back pay, changes that will ensure they are paid
for the work in the future, and for a judge to declare the suit a
class action that could sweep in other part-time academics,
commonly called adjuncts. As many as 37,000 adjuncts teach in the
115 colleges.

The lawsuit, filed on Oct. 24 in Sacramento Superior Court, mirrors
allegations made in a similar suit against Long Beach City College
that adjuncts filed in April, claiming a lack of pay for work done
outside of teaching hours. The Long Beach suit remains in the
preliminary stages, Los Angeles Superior Court records show. But
while the Long Beach suit focuses only on one community college
district, the suit filed on Oct. 24 has statewide reach and names
the state California Community College system as a defendant.

The "plaintiffs have not been paid for all their hours of work
outside of class to prepare their lectures or labs, grade papers
and exams, prepare syllabi, email with or talk to their students,
and assist in essential departmental activities," the suit claims.
"California state law does not permit employers to take advantage
of employees by not paying them for all hours worked."

"It's been a long time brewing," the lead plaintiff, John Martin,
chairman of the California Part-time Faculty Association, said in
an interview on Oct. 24. His intention is to "up the ante and put
the pressure on the districts. This is another tool."

Martin is named in the suit as specifically suing the
Shasta-Trinity-Tehema Joint Community College District, where he
teaches history. If a judge classifies the suit as a class action,
he would represent a class of part-timers at that school. The other
plaintiffs would represent classes of part-time faculty at their
districts.

The other districts named in the suit are Butte-Glenn, San Diego,
Mt. San Jacinto, Los Rios, Yuba, Los Angeles and Cerritos.
Spokespersons for the districts either did not respond to requests
for comment or said their districts have yet to be served with the
suit. Of the 73 districts statewide, the Los Angeles Community
College District is the largest with eight colleges and nearly
120,000 students.

A spokesman for the state community college system said the suit
has not been served there and declined to comment.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Daniel Galpern, wrote in the
complaint that the system was named as a defendant because it "is a
part of the California state government that oversees, sets policy
and provides guidance for the California community college
districts." It "directly plays a role in being the liaison between
community college districts across the state and the Legislature."
It plays "a policy implementing role, was responsible for and/or
was aware" that adjuncts are not paid for work outside the
classroom, the suit claims.

Adjuncts work semester by semester with little to no job security,
especially as pandemic-driven enrollment drops are costing jobs.
EdSource reported in February in a three-part-investigative series
on their working conditions that adjuncts make up 70% or more of
all faculty at 35 districts and that at only two districts do
full-time faculty outnumber them.

They are paid hourly for classroom time, and sometimes for office
hours, often at a rate less than teaching hours. But the need for
hours to prepare and grade is not acknowledged, adjuncts claim.

Yet district and state officials know "that such
outside-of-classroom work is essential to their part-time
professors' teaching effectiveness and imposes criteria and
evaluations as to which this work is integral." The districts named
as defendants have "benefited from the uncompensated work of their
part-time faculty," the suit claims.

"The problem has been ongoing and apparently is not getting any
better," Galpern told EdSource on Oct. 24. 'It's a question of
fundamental justice." [GN]

CARE4ALL CAREGIVERS: Smith's Counsel to Serve Class Notice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHIQUITA SMITH,
Individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
current and former employees, v. CARE4ALL CAREGIVERS, LLC and Sandi
Ann Seymour-Necaise, Case No. 1:22-cv-00094-TBM-RPM (S.D. Miss.),
the Hon. Judge Taylor B. McNeel entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's counsel is authorized to serve the Notice
      and Consent to Join forms to the Parties' Join Motion to:

      "all individuals who received caregiving assignments from
      Care4all Caregivers, LLC and Sandi Ann Seymour-Necaise
      during the last three years from April 20, 2022, plus any
      individual who performed work after April 20, 2022 and up
      to the expiration of the opt-in period."

   2. The Plaintiff's counsel shall file a Notice of Mailing
      within three business days after the mailing to inform
      Defense counsel and the Court that the opt-in period has
      begun.

   3. The Defendants will make it best efforts to ensure that
      all addresses for their current caregivers are current
      when the addresses are provided to Plaintiff’s counsel.

   4. The opt-in period for any individual who consents to join
      this lawsuit shall expire 45 days after Plaintiff's
      counsel mails the Notice and Consent to Join forms.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WdSfYF at no extra charge.[CC]


CAREFUSION RESOURCES: Zakay Law Group Files Labor Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego labor law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL
Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against Carefusion
Resources, LLC and Beckton Dickinson and Company (hereinafter,
collectively, "Carefusion Resources and Beckton Dickinson and
Company") for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely,
off-duty meal and rest periods. The class action lawsuit, Case No.
37-2022-00037343-CU-OE-CTL, is currently pending in the San Diego
County Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of the
complaint can be read here.

According to the lawsuit, Carefusion Resources and Beckton
Dickinson and Company allegedly violated California Labor Code
Sections Secs. 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558,
1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing to: (1) pay minimum
wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide required meal and rest
periods; (4) reimburse employees for required expenses; (5) pay
wages when due; and (6) provide accurate itemized wage statements.

Under California law, every employer shall pay to each employee, on
the established payday for the period involved, not less than the
applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period,
whether the remuneration is measured by time, piece, commission, or
otherwise. Hours worked is defined in the applicable Wage Order as
"the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an
employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or
permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." Carefusion
Resources and Beckton Dickinson and Company allegedly required its
employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts,
as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. The lawsuit alleges
Carefusion Resources and Beckton Dickinson and Company failed to
compensate its employees for any of the time spent under the
employer's control while working off-the-clock. As such, Carefusion
Resources and Beckton Dickinson and Company allegedly failed to pay
its employees the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in a
payroll period.

If you would like to know more about the Carefusion Resources and
Beckton Dickinson and Company lawsuit, please contact Attorney
Jackland Hom today by calling (619) 255-9047.

Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and
employment law firms with offices located in California that
dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been
wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices.
Contact one of their attorneys today if you need help with
workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination,
retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. [GN]

CASE WESTERN: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to June 9, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Lozada,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Case Western Reserve University, Case No. 1:20-cv-02336-DAR (N.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge David A. Ruiz entered an order granting
second joint request for extension of dates in July 25, 2022
scheduling order as follows:

                            Existing Date      Revised Date

-- Fact Discovery:         Nov. 9, 2022       Feb. 7, 2023

-- Plaintiff’s expert      Nov. 9, 2022       Feb. 7, 2023
    reports must be
    produced by:

-- Defendant's expert      Dec. 11, 2022      Mar. 11, 2023
    reports must be
    produced by:

-- Motion for Class        Mar. 11, 2023      June 9, 2023
    Certification &
    Summary Judgment:

-- Depositions of          Feb. 9, 2023       May 10, 2023
    Experts:

-- All fact and expert     Feb. 9, 2023       May 10, 2023
    discovery:  

Case Western Reserve University is a private research university in
Cleveland, Ohio.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gUz5XF at no extra charge.[CC]

CATHOLIC SUPPLY: Basil's Filings Won't Be Considered in Dicks Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALERIE DICKS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATHOLIC SUPPLY OF ST. LOUIS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-7610-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York holds that it
will not consider any submissions from Robert J. Basil until a
notice of appearance is filed.

The Court received the two attached letters from Robert J. Basil
via e-mail on Oct. 24, 2022. Mr. Basil has been retained as local
counsel for the Defendant but has not yet filed a notice of
appearance. Filing such a notice will not serve to forfeit any
personal jurisdiction defense. All future submissions must be filed
on the docket.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/j34kx72e from Leagle.com.


CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Certify Care Coordinator Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAIWAN DICKERSON and KIM KING-MACON, Each Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC, and CENTENE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00519-HEA
(E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   A. Conditionally certifying the case as a collective action;

   B. Approving Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and Consent to Join
      and proposed method of distribution including mailing and
      emailing;

   C. Approving the form and content;

   D. Directing the Defendants to produce the requested contact
      information of each putative collective member in an
      electronically importable and malleable electronic format,
      such as Excel, within seven days after this Court's Order
      is entered;

   E. Allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin on the
      date on which Defendants produce the collective members'
      names and contact information, in which collective members
      may submit Consents to Join this lawsuit as opt-in
      plaintiffs; and

   F. Awarding costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and grant
      all other relief to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled,
      whether specifically prayed for or not.

The Plaintiffs brought this suit, each individually and on behalf
of all other current and former Care Coordinators who worked for
the Defendants and are similarly situated, to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs Dickerson and King-Macon worked as hourly-paid Care
Coordinators for the Defendants in Arkansas.

Centene is a publicly traded managed care company based in St.
Louis, Missouri. It serves as an intermediary for
government-sponsored and privately insured health care programs.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 18, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DLnXFC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          Courtney Harness, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

CENTESSA PHARMACEUTICALS: Fernandes Suit Moved to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIA FERNANDES, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CENTESSA
PHARMACEUTICALS PLC, SAURABH SAHA, GREGORY WEINHOFF, MARELLA
THORELL, FRANCESCO DE RUBERTIS, ARJUN GOYAL, AARON KANTOFF, BRETT
ZBAR, MARY LYNNE HEDLEY, SAMARTH KULKARNI, CAROL STUCKLEY, and
ROBERT CALIFF, Case No. 2:22-cv-07030 (Filed Sept. 28, 2022) is
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:22-cv-08805 to the proceeding.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired
Centessa American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or
traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the
Company's initial public offering conducted on May 28, 2021 (IPO);
and/or Centessa securities between May 28, 2021 and June 1, 2022.

The Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Boris Feldman, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          Telephone: (650) 461-8200
          E-mail: boris.feldman@freshfields.com

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Gelt Seeks to Certify Class of Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GELT TRADING, LTD., a
Cayman Islands limited company, v. CO-DIAGNOSTICS, INC., a Utah
Corporation, DWIGHT EGAN, JAMES NELSON, EUGENE DURENARD, EDWARD
MURPHY, RICHARD SERBIN, REED BENSON, BRENT SATTERFIELD, Case No.
2:20-cv-00368-JNP-DBP (D. Utah), the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of investors in Co-Diagnostics, Inc.;

   2. appointing Gelt as class representative; and

   3. appointing Co-Lead Counsel, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Marcus
      Neiman Rashbaum & Pineiro LLP, and Fasano Law Firm, PLLC,
      as Co-Class Counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

The federal securities action alleges that Co-Diagnostics and its
executives engaged in securities fraud through material
misrepresentations about the purported 100% accuracy of
Co-Diagnostics' Covid-19 diagnostic test.

These fraudulent misrepresentations caused Co-Diagnostics'
investors to purchase Co-Diagnostics' shares at artificially
inflated prices and to incur substantial losses once the falsity of
the Defendants' representations was revealed.

Co-Diagnostics, founded in 2013, specializes in DNA-based
diagnostic testing technology developed by its founder, Brent
Satterfield.

A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct.
17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3TFv2Nr at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Loren Washburn, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          201 South Main Street, Suite 2400
          Salt Lake City, UT, 84111
          Telephone: (800) 243-5070
          E-mail: lwashburn@atllp.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Pineiro, Esq.
          MARCUS NEIMAN RASHBAUM & PINEIRO LLP
          2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2530
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-4268
          E-mail: mpineiro@mnrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Fasano, Esq.
          FASANO LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2530
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 530-5239
          E-mail: mfasano@fasanolaw.com

COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION: Blackwell Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tim Blackwell v.
Commercial Refrigeration Specialists, Inc. & Climate Pros, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01968-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an
order:

   1. denying in part the motion for class certification as to
      rest break subclass and the minimum wage subclass;

   2. granting in part the motion for class certification as to
      the on-call subclass, wage statement subclass, and
      terminated employee subclass with the end dates redefined
      as the filed date of this order; and

   3. denying the motion to strike as moot.

The court considers defendants' argument that these claims are
better suited to labor arbitrations. The lawsuit is not for a
violation of the collective bargaining agreement; therefore, a
labor arbitration would be inappropriate. The on-call service
employee subclass satisfies the superiority requirement.

   -- Rest Break Subclass

      Blackwell suggests two common issues of the rest break
      subclass predominate over any individual questions:

     (1) defendants' policy not to provide rest breaks for split
         shifts; and

     (2) defendants' failure to maintain a policy "to
         affirmatively relieve employees of all duty during rest
         breaks, but rather, placed the burden on workers to
         figure out when to take rest breaks."

   -- Minimum Wage Subclass

      To support certification of the minimum wage subclass,
      Blackwell argues defendants "maintain a common practice of
      not paying for travel time recorded as commute time, even
      though defendants maintain an undisputed policy to check
      employees’ recorded time for accuracy and correct it as
      needed." But defendants' policy allows technicians to run
      personal errands during their travel, though this time is
      unpaid.

   -- On-Call Subclass

      "Blackwell's on-call subclass satisfies the predominance
      requirement. Blackwell points to three common issues
      shared by the subclass:

      (1) whether employees should be compensated for all on-
          call time;

      (2) whether employees were paid for on-call time,
          including time spent fielding customer calls; and

      (3) whether defendants knew or should have known employees
          were performing work for which they were not, but
          should have been, paid.

Climate Pros is a commercial refrigeration and HVAC company
specializing in maintenance, repair, construction and equipment
sales and installation.

Since April 2016, defendants have employed approximately 305
service technicians across four different branch locations in
California. These technicians sometimes hold different job titles,
including service journeymen and service apprentices.

Technicians typically drive company trucks from their homes to
customer locations at the start of each day. Technicians belong to
one of fifteen different union locals, and their wages, hours and
working conditions are governed by their local's
collective-bargaining agreement (CBA).

The Defendants' policy is to compensate employees for any time
spent driving beyond the first hour of commute time. Some
technicians work after-hours shifts, where they respond to customer
requests.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gTbM0l at no extra charge.[CC]


COMPANA PET: Seeks Dismissal of Doggie Dailies Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
manufacturer of Doggie Dailies Hip & Joint Supplement for Dogs has
asked a judge to throw out a proposed class action, saying the
plaintiff based her false-advertising claim on irrelevant
scientific studies and her own subjective conclusion that the
supplements don't work.

Compana Pet Brands, in a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, also says
plaintiff Linda Goshert lacks standing to sue and amended her
complaint to add details she apparently remembered after filing the
first version of the case.

Goshert claims she has been buying Doggie Dailies for years on
Amazon.com but they failed to cure her dog's arthritic hips. She
cites four scientific studies to bolster her claim the products
don't cure joint disease.

Compana said the studies are irrelevant because they concern actual
joint disease and Doggie Dailies only "promotes healthy joints."
Two of the four studies, moreover, say it is possible the
glucosamine and chondroitin in Doggie Dailies could help canine
joints, the company said. Goshert also can't represent consumers
who purchased two other Compana vitamin products because she never
actually bought them, the company said.

Goshert is represented by Sean Litteral of Bursor Fisher, who has
filed at least 20 similar lawsuits this year. In another, he
accuses Mars Inc. of putting unsafe levels of titanium dioxide in
Skittles. Fisher Bursor's business model appears to have drawn
competition: in a filing in that case, the law firm accuses rivals
Foote, Mielke, Chavez & O'Neil of Geneva, Ill. of copying its
complaint "word for word." [GN]

COMPASS MINERALS: Local 295 Sues Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
LOCAL 295 IBT EMPLOYER GROUP WELFARE FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPASS
MINERALS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; FRANCIS J. MALECHA; JAMES D. STANDEN;
and ANTHONY J. SEPICH, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02432-EFM-ADM
(D. Kan., Oct. 21, 2022) is a securities fraud class action on
behalf of all purchasers of Compass Minerals common stock between
October 31, 2017 and November 18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), alleging the Defendants' violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that during the Class
Period, defendants repeatedly assured investors that the continuous
mining and continuous haulage ("CMCH") upgrade at the Goderich mine
was on track to materially reduce costs and boost the Company's
operating results starting in 2018.

The Defendants' statements were misleading because they failed to
tell investors that costs at the Goderich mine were increasing
rather than decreasing. The Defendants also misrepresented the
amount of salt the Company was able to produce at Goderich using
the new CMCH equipment, and failed to disclose how the known and
ongoing production shortfalls it was experiencing were reasonably
expected to reduce its future operating income.

On October 23, 2018, the Company pre-announced third quarter 2018
financial results that were significantly below expectations and
lowered its outlook for the remainder of the year. Following this
announcement, the price of Compass Minerals stock declined by more
than 30% over the following two days. Then, before the market
opened on November 19, 2018, the Company announced the abrupt
termination of its CEO, Malecha. Following this announcement, the
price of Compass Minerals stock declined by 8% over the following
three days, the suit asserts.

COMPASS MINERALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. provides essential minerals.
The Company produces salt, plant nutrients, and magnesium chloride,
as well as offers a secure records storage in a retired mine.
Compass Minerals International serves a variety of applications in
industrial, agricultural, commercial and consumer markets
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          Email: dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com

CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ortiz Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NASHAILY ORTIZ; ISAURA LOPEZ; RUBEN LEMUS NAJARRO; NASHEMIR ORTIZ;
and ADRIANNA GAMBOA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF
NEW YORK, INC.; CE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC; CE SOLUTIONS INC.; CE
FLAGGING PLUS CORP.; CE RESERVE CORP.; FLAGGING SPOTTING FLIPPING
SERVICES INC.; ARGANI INC.; NYC 2WAY INTERNATIONAL LTD. d/b/a CTG
CARS LLC; CONCORD LIMOUSINE INC.; CONCORD LIMOUSINE 1, LLC;
JEANNINE NAPOLEONECOLBERT;, HASSAN SABLINI; EDWARD DORA SLININ;
GARY SAMUEL; and ALEXANDER GAVRILOV Defendants, Case 1:22-cv-08957
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as spotters.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. provides utility
services. The Company offers electricity, natural gas, and steam
services. Consolidated Edison Company serves customers in the State
of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alex J. Hartzband, Esq.
          Camilo M. Burr, Esq.
          Annabel R. Stanley, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          Email: ahartzband@faruqilaw.com
                 cburr@faruqilaw.com
                 astanley@faruqilaw.com

CORNWELL QUALITY: Salinas Wins Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY SALINAS v. THE
CORNWELL QUALITY TOOLS COMPANY, Case No. 5:19-cv-02275-FLA-Spx
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an
order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "All persons who signed Dealer Agreements in California
      and personally operated a mobile store at any time within
      four years preceding the filing of this action;" and

   2. appointing Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP to serve as class
      counsel for the certified class.

On October 10, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the Class Action Complaint
in Riverside County Superior Court. The Defendant removed the
action to federal court on November 27, 2019.

On May 29, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended
Class Action Complaint, asserting causes of action against
Defendant for violation of the Cal. Labor Code and California
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage (IWC) Order, and the Unfair
Competition Law.

Cornwell Quality is a privately held company manufacturing tools
for the automotive and aviation industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U0mvnT at no extra charge.[CC]


CRST EXPEDITED: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Certification Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH HUCKABY,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC.,
corporation; CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC., an Iowa corporation; and
DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-07766-ODW-PD (C.D.
Cal.), the Defendant CRST asks the Court to reconsider the Court's
order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

CRST provides transportation and logistics solutions including
expedited, flatbed, dedicated, and final mile.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U1sbhm at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          James H. Hanson, Esq.
          Andrew J. Ireland, Esq.
          Charles Andrewscavage, Esq.
          Jared S. Kramer, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
          E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
                  jhanson@scopelitis.com
                  aireland@scopelitis.com
                  candrewscavage@scopelitis.com
                  jskramer@scopelitis.com

DAVIS OIL: Joint Bid for Class Cert & Settlement Approval Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA WELLS, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DAVIS OIL CO. and
C-STORES, INC.,  Case No. 1:22-cv-00281-JMB-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order:

    -- Individual payments

       The Individual Settlement Payments are calculated
       proportionally on each Eligible Employees' alleged
       damages during the Relevant Period.

    -- Service Award

       The Defendants will pay $4,750.00 to the Plaintiff
       Melissa Wells, in addition to her Individual Settlement
       Payment, for her service as the Representative Plaintiff
       and for executing the release of claims.

    -- Attorneys' Fees and Costs

       The Defendants will pay up to one-third of the Gross
       Settlement Amount to the Plaintiffs' Counsel for
       attorneys' fees incurred to date and attorneys' fees that
       Plaintiffs' Counsel anticipates incurring as part of the
       settlement approval process. The Defendants do not
       dispute that this amount of fees and costs sought by
       Plaintiffs is reasonable. Payment of such attorneys' fees
       and costs to Plaintiffs' counsel shall constitute full
       satisfaction of any and all obligations by Defendants to
       pay any person, attorney or law firm for attorneys' fees
       or costs incurred on behalf of the Named Plaintiff and
       Participating Plaintiffs.

    -- Release of Claims

       The negotiating of a settlement check by any Eligible
       Employee makes them a Participating Plaintiff and
       provides sufficient consideration for his or her release
       of claims.

On March 25, 2022, the Plaintiff Melissa Wells filed her Complaint,
initiating this action on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, seeking damages for alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and Michigan
common law.

On April 27, 2022 the Plaintiffs filed their Pre-Discovery Motion
for Conditional Collective Certification and Court-Authorized
Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b).

Davis Oil is a southeast based distributor of lubricants, fuels and
fuel additives to the construction industry and commercial accounts
such as car dealers.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WbEycF at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, are:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
          SOMMER SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
                  akarbal@sommerspc.com

The Attorneys for the Defendants, are:

          Courtney L. Nichols, Esq.
          PLUNKETT COONEY
          38505 Woodward Avenue, Ste. 100
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 594-6360
          E-mail: cnichols@plunkettcooney.com

DAVITA INC: Bowling Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Bowling,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DaVita, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action on behalf of:

      "all current and former nurses and technicians for the
      three years prior to the date this case was filed to the
      date of the entry of said Order;"

   2. directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's
      counsel a list of all of the Collective Action Members
      identifying their name, job title, last known mailing
      address, last known personal email address(es), last known
      cell phone numbers, dates of employment, location(s) of
      employment, employee identification number, and last four
      digits of each Collective Action Member's social security
      number within seven days after the entry of said Order;

   3. approving issuance of notice to the collective action
      members and the form of notice;

   4. permitting a 90-day notice period for the collective
      action members to determine whether to opt-in to this
      lawsuit; and

   5. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel or a third-party
      administrator to issue notice to the collective action
      members by mail, email, and text message at the beginning
      of the notice period, with a reminder 45-days thereafter.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of nurses and technicians
who worked for DaVita providing care to patients receiving kidney
dialysis and other medical attention.

DaVita required its nurses and technicians to remain responsible
for patient care throughout their shifts, including during meal
periods. As a result, DaVita never fully relieved the Plaintiff and
similarly situated workers of all duties during meal periods, and
Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members are due back-pay for
any time they were "clocked out" for a non-compliant, unpaid meal
break.

Furthermore, the Defendant's records reflect that the Plaintiff and
similarly situated workers frequently went without pay for short
rest breaks of fewer than 20 minutes, which is not permitted under
the FLSA.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN, LLP
          11 Greenway Plasa, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net

               - and -

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
          400 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com


DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Laptop Battery Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges Dell Technologies has deceived consumers by
failing to disclose that the lithium-ion batteries in its Inspiron
15 3000 Series laptops are not tested for certain manufacturing
defects that could cause them to fail prematurely.

The 11-page case claims consumers expect a laptop's battery -- "its
most important feature," according to the suit -- to function
adequately for the lifespan of the machine and to not "suffer rapid
degradation and failure."

The filing contends that consumers would not have bought the Dell
Inspiron laptops had they known the testing of the machines'
batteries overlooked certain "failure precursors and defects"
introduced during manufacturing that could lead to reliability and
performance issues and cause the batteries to fail prematurely.

According to the suit, the testing methods for the lithium-ion
batteries used in Dell's Inspiron laptops focus mainly on overall
performance without checking for manufacturing defects. The case
says structural cell defects, electrode defects, tab burrs,
separator defects, morphological defects, and impurities and
contaminants introduced during the manufacture of the battery can
lead to problems ranging from inferior performance and overheating
to a reduced lifespan or complete failure.

The manufacturer's failure to use available testing methods to
address these issues has led to an increased likelihood that
consumers will purchase laptops with battery performance issues
that are not linked to how they use their computers, the lawsuit
alleges.

The suit says Dell, by selling its laptops, represents to buyers
that the machines' components are adequate and will function "for a
reasonable period of time." Due to the batteries' inadequate
testing, Dell's Inspiron laptops are worth much less than their
value as represented by the company, the case contends.

The plaintiff, a Carbondale, Illinois resident, says she purchased
a Dell Inspiron 15 3000 Series laptop in March 2020 under the
belief that its battery "could reliably hold its charge and not
drain rapidly after short periods unconnected to an external power
source." After only a few months, however, the plaintiff's laptop
could no longer maintain its charge "for any reasonable period of
time," the suit says.

The case says the plaintiff and others paid more for Dell's
Inspiron laptop than they otherwise would have had they known the
computers' batteries had been tested for only macroscopic
performance and not other defects that could cause them to fail.

The suit looks to represent anyone in Illinois, North Dakota, North
Carolina, Kentucky, Utah, Kansas and Wyoming who purchased a Dell
Inspiron 15 3000 Series laptop within the applicable statute of
limitations period. [GN]

DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Hopkins Suit Over Mislabeled Laptops
-------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-02464 (S.D. Ill., Oct. 23, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, markets,
and/or sells the Inspiron 15 3000 Series of laptop computers under
the Dell brand with lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries ("Product"). By
selling its laptops, the Defendant represents that their component
parts are adequate for usage and will function reliably for a
reasonable period of time. The value of the Product that Plaintiff
purchased was materially less than its value as represented by the
Defendant. The Defendant described the Product so the Plaintiff
believed that its battery would not prematurely fail or degrade
under normal usage, which became part of the basis of the bargain
that it would conform to its affirmations and promises. The
Defendant had a duty to disclose and provide non-deceptive
descriptions and marketing of the Product, i.e., that its most
important component was not tested in a manner designed to identify
the above failure points, says the suit.

This duty is based on the Defendant's outsized role in the market
for this type of product, custodian of the Dell brand. The Product
is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $625,
excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, sold and
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be
sold for if consumers were aware it was prone to these defects, the
suit added.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. provides computer products. The Company
offers laptops, desktops, tablets, workstations, servers, monitors,
printers, gateways, software, storage, and networking products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Trial Set in Workers' Wage Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Schneiders, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
pizza giant Domino's was scheduled to be on trial in a landmark
case over a national wages scandal that allegedly left tens of
thousands of its staff paid significantly less than the minimum
award wage.

The claim, brought by class action law firm Phi Finney McDonald,
alleges that drivers and in-store staff were underpaid up to $11 an
hour or $10,000 a year.

If successful, the claim could be worth tens of millions of dollars
to low-paid workers employed at franchise stores.

The class action follows an investigation by The Age and The Sydney
Morning Herald from 2015 to 2017 that uncovered widespread
underpayments in retail and fast food as part of workplace
agreements between big business and the Shop Assistants Union
(SDA), affecting upwards of 250,000 workers.

Those agreements resulted in significant underpayments at major
employers including Coles, McDonald's and Woolworths. Since then,
the termination of these agreements has boosted the pay of hundreds
of thousands of workers.

Key to the legal claim –- which was due to be heard in a Federal
Court trial on November 2 -- is the allegation that Domino's
incorrectly told its franchisees to pay workers according to
workplace agreements that the company struck with the SDA rather
than the fast food award. Those agreements paid workers
significantly less than the minimum award wage.

The class action does not affect stores run by the franchise's head
office.

Abhinav Rana worked as a driver and in-store at three Domino's
stores in Melbourne's outer east between 2016 and 2018. As a casual
employee working 25 to 30 hours a week, he was paid a flat $16 an
hour.

If he was paid award wages, he should have received about $25 an
hour and more on weekends and at night. When he started, he was
paid $12.40 an hour as a delivery driver with a small delivery fee
-- again well below the minimum award wage.

Rana, a temporary migrant worker from India, has estimated he was
underpaid by up to $20,000 at Domino's.

"It was pretty hard for me living day to day . . . Melbourne is
expensive," he said. "Being new to this country, you don't know
much about it [the employment system]. You rely on the person who
you're working for that they treat you right."

A spokesperson for Domino's said it "strongly disputes" the
allegations in the class action.

"We maintain that the entitlements of all workers in every Domino's
store in Australia were governed by our enterprise agreements in
place at the time. The enterprise agreements were terminated in
January 2018 and every Domino's store in Australia moved to the
award conditions at that time," the spokesperson said.

In 2016, an estimate by investment bank Deutsche found that
Domino's was saving more than $30 million a year in wages by paying
workers under its workplace agreements rather than the fast food
award.

Phi Finney McDonald principal lawyer Brett Spiegel said he wanted
as many Domino's workers to have their day in court as possible and
"we want the court to know the scale of what workers say they are
entitled to if there is an order for Domino's to pay
compensation".

Retail and Fast Food Workers secretary Josh Cullinan, who helped
expose the wages scandal, said he hoped the legal action would
bring justice.

"What we are hoping that the court action does is deliver justice
for the tens of thousands of workers that have had their wages
stolen," he said.

"We are looking forward to these low-paid exploited workers finally
having their voice heard and securing the justice they deserve."
[GN]

DREAMFIELDS BRANDS: Sued Over Mislabeled Jeeter Cannabis Prerolls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that the makers
of Jeeter-brand cannabis prerolls face a proposed class action that
alleges the joints contain "materially less" THC than declared on
product labels.

California regulations require the label of a cannabis product to
include a declaration, in either a percentage or in milligrams, of
the item's THC content, the 26-page case explains. Depending on the
nature of a product, the THC content on the label must be within 10
percent of what's actually in the package, the lawsuit stresses.

The suit contends that although defendants DreamFields Brands and
Med for America claim their Jeeter prerolls -- cannabis that has
been rolled in paper and is ready to smoke right out of the box, as
opposed to loose cannabis consumers must roll themselves -- have
very high (at least 35 percent) tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content,
independent testing has revealed that the amount of THC in the
products is much less than advertised.

The lawsuit's filing comes more than a month after Weed Week
published a report detailing the results of testing performed on
several California preroll brands, including Jeeter, to see whether
the THC content declared on their labels was accurate. Weed Week's
testing revealed that, for prerolls, "potency inflation is close to
ubiquitous," the case says.

According to the suit, the difference between the amount of THC,
the chemical responsible for the psychological effects of
marijuana, declared on Jeeter product labels and the amount
actually present in the prerolls is "far greater" than the
10-percent margin of error permitted by the California Department
of Cannabis Control (DCC).

"Defendants are systematically overstating the THC content to
deceive consumers into thinking that the effects of their prerolls
are more potent than they truly are," the complaint alleges. "This
is false and misleading. And, it violates DCC regulations, and
California law."

Per the case, cannabis consumers generally prefer and are willing
to pay more for high-THC products. Declaring that their prerolls
have high THC content allows the defendants to charge "premium
rates" for their cannabis products, the case argues.

"The THC content of cannabis products is important to consumers,
and drives consumer purchasing decisions. Because THC is
responsible for most of the psychological effects that cannabis
produces, many consumers prefer and seek out cannabis with a higher
THC content. The THC content of cannabis products largely drives
the demand for those products."

As the filing tells it, "THC fraud" is "rampant" in California, and
recent testing found that 87 percent of samples missed the mark by
more than 10 percent as far as their declared THC content.
According to the case, Jeeter "holds the title of the best-selling
preroll in the country with over 40% of California's market share."


Weed Week's testing of one Jeeter preroll product, Baby Jeeter Fire
OG Diamond Infused 5-Pack Preroll, touted on its label as 46
percent THC, revealed that the joints actually contained between 23
percent and 27 percent THC, the suit says. A second Jeeter preroll
product touted as having 37 percent THC, Baby Jeeter Churros
Diamond Infused 5-Pack Preroll, was found by Weed Week to contain
substantially less than that, between 26 and 29 percent, the case
states.

"Defendants know, or reasonably should know, that they are
misleading consumers," the filing alleges, claiming the companies
have overcharged millions of cannabis buyers through their
systematic mislabeling of Jeeter prerolls.

The suit looks to cover all persons who, while in California and
within the applicable statute of limitations period, bought or one
more Jeeter preroll products. [GN]

EL DORADO OIL: Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action in Keller
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Keller, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. El Dorado Oil &
Gas, Inc., Excell Operating, Inc., Bullzeye Oilfield Service LLC,
Thomas L. Swarek, Jonathan Swarek, Michael Boothe, and Zackry
Maxey, Case No. 1:22-cv-00042-TBM-RPM (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge
Taylor B. McNeel entered an order granting joint motion to hold
issue of service of process on remaining Defendants in abeyance and
stipulation to issue notice pursuant to Swales as follows:

   1. certifying a collective action under the federal Fair
      Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216, and
      authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to issue opt-in
      notices and consent forms to all individuals identified in
      the following definition:

      "All current or former employees of Defendants who were
      paid on a hybrid day rate basis and who are/were not paid
      time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay
      for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day
      workweek for the time period beginning three years prior
      to the entry of an order certifying a collective action
      under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and forward;"

   2. directing the Defendant to provide Counsel for Plaintiff
      with the last four digits of the Social Security Number
      for putative class members whose mail is returned
      undeliverable; and

   3. staying case for a period of 60 days following the close
      of the opt-in period so that the Parties may attempt to
      settle the claims of the Plaintiff and any Opt-in
      Plaintiff.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fcW5Re at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught,Esq.
          VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
          1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 9150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (972) 707-7816
          Facsimile: (972) 591-4564
          E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net

               - and -

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
          400 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, Texas 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by

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

EMPYREAN SERVICES: Initial Scheduling Order Entered in Zimbrich
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ZIMBRICH,
INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. EMPYREAN
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00894-RJC-LPL (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan entered an initial scheduling order as
follows:

  -- Amendments to the pleadings and           Dec. 19, 2022
     joinder of additional parties will
     be completed by:

  -- The parties shall complete class          Jan. 20, 2023
     certification discovery only by:

  -- A status/settlement conference will       Feb. 6, 2023
     be held on:

Empyrean provides professional services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DLgC8P at no extra charge.[CC]

ENSERVCO CORPORATION: Awaits Filing of Amended Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enservco Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2022, that it is awaiting
the filing of an amended securities class action complaint that has
been delayed due to turnover within the plaintiff's counsel's
staff.

In June 2022, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit
claiming that the Company and certain of its officers violated
securities laws in relation to certain of its SEC Form 10-Q filings
in 2021 which required amendments and restatements to such filings.
The Company believes the claims are without merit and have engaged
counsel to vigorously defend the Company against such claims.

In August 2022, the plaintiff provided notice that it was amending
its original complaint to include a new lead plaintiff. The amended
complaint has been further delayed due to turnover within the
plaintiff's counsel's staff.

The Company maintains Director's and Officer's insurance coverage
to defend against such claims and the insurance carriers have been
notified. While the Company believes the claims are without merit,
there can be no assurances that a favorable final outcome will be
obtained, and defending any lawsuit can be costly and can impose a
significant burden on management and employees. Any litigation to
which the Company is a party may result in an unfavorable judgment
that may not be reversed upon appeal or in payments of substantial
monetary damages or fines, or we may decide to settle such lawsuit
on similarly unfavorable terms, which could adversely affect the
Company's business, financial condition, or results of operations.
Furthermore, there can be no assurances that the Company's
insurance coverage will be available in sufficient amounts to cover
such claim, or at all.

Enservco Corporation, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries,
provides various services to the domestic onshore oil and natural
gas industry.

EQUIFAX INFO: Seeks to Amend Class Definition in Rivera Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO JOEL RIVERA, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-04639-AT-CCB (N.D. Ga.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order amending the class
definition as follows, to align with the Court's reasoning and the
basis of the Court's class
certification in this case:

   "During the period beginning two years prior to the filing of
   this action and through the time of class notice, all persons
   residing in the U.S. and its Territories who mailed a letter
   to Equifax disputing one or more hard inquiries, whose
   inquiry dispute was coded as "not mine" (001) or
   "unauthorized" (383) by Equifax, and to whom Equifax sent a
   document containing Cons Comm 664 (i.e., a statement that
   "inquiries are a factual record of file access").

Equifax seeks this amendment only to ensure that the class
definition conforms with the bases for class certification set out
in the Court's Order. In seeking this amendment, Equifax expressly
reserves its rights to make any further motions or arguments
regarding class certification, including a motion for
decertification.

In closing, Equifax notes that it made numerous attempts to secure
Plaintiff's approval to submit this request as a joint motion.
Equifax first sent a letter to Plaintiff's counsel regarding the
need to amend the class definition on July 14, 2022.

On August 15, after receiving a follow-up email from Equifax, the
Plaintiff's counsel responded that Plaintiff "agree[d] in
principle" with Equifax's proposal and requested that Equifax "send
over a stipulation with some proposed language."

On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order certifying a class in
this Fair Credit Reporting Act action challenging Equifax's
procedures for reinvestigating consumer disputes of "hard inquiry"
notations on their credit files.

The Court certified the following class as defined in Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification:

"During the period beginning two years prior to the filing of this
action and through the time of class notice, all persons residing
in the U.S. and its Territories to whom Equifax sent a document
containing Cons Comm 664 (i.e., a statement that "inquiries are a
factual record of file access") in response to a written dispute of
one or more hard inquiries."

Equifax provides data solutions.

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

The Defendant is represented by

          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          John C. Toro, Esq.
          Billie B. Pritchard, Esq.
          Paige L. Burroughs, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree St., SE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: zmcentyre@kslaw.com
          jtoro@kslaw.com
          bpritchard@kslaw.com
          pburroughs@kslaw.com

FLAGSTAR BANK: Nonparty Pinnacle Seeks to Quash Notice of Subpoena
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Financial Strategies, a nonparty, asks the Court to quash
Plaintiff's Notice of Subpoena to testify at a deposition served on
Pinnacle by Plaintiff, in class action suit captioned VERONICA
GARDNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Case No. 4:22-mc-01850 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 21,
2022).

The Subpoena cited Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and sought not only deposition testimony but also the production of
documents. Pinnacle timely served its specific objections to the
Subpoena.

The Plaintiff sues the Defendant for alleged breach of contract,
including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and conversion under MCL 600.2919a, related to fees assessed and
collected by Flagstar from its customers.

On August 5, 2022, the Plaintiff served Pinnacle with the Rule 45
Subpoena in Houston, Texas. The Subpoena directed Pinnacle to
appear for deposition on September 1, 2022, "via Zoom" and to
produce documents specified in Exhibit A to the Subpoena "via
email." The required subpoena fees were not included and still have
not been paid.

Flagstar Bank is the primary subsidiary of Flagstar Bancorp, Inc.,
a bank holding company. It is one of the largest residential
mortgage servicers and is on the list of largest banks in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Amanda Rosenberg, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th St NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
                  jkaliel@kalielgold.com
                  arosenberg@kalielgold.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Caroline B. Giordano, Esq.
          Soni Mithani, Esq.
          Vernon Miller, Esq.
          MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE
          150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 963-6420
          Facsimile: (313) 496-7500
          E-mail: giordano@millercanfield.com
                  mithani@millercanfield.com
                  vernon@millercanfield.com

Non-Party Pinnacle is represented by:

          Gwen E. Richard, Esq.
          MCKINNEY TAYLOR P.C.
          Three Riverway, Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 487-1487
          Facsimile: (713) 487-1488
          E-mail: richard@mckinneytaylor.com

GOOGLE LLC: Segal Sues Over Unauthorized Biometric Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN SEGAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-06398 (N.D. Cal., Oct.
21, 2022) is a class action complaint on behalf of customers harmed
as a result of Google's surreptitious collection, use, and storage
of Plaintiff's and the proposed Class's highly sensitive biometric
data.

Accordingly, Google systematically and automatically collected,
used, analyzed, transferred and stored the Plaintiff's and the
Class's biometric identifiers without first obtaining the specific
written release required by 740 ILCS. Google allegedly did not
properly inform the Plaintiff or the Class members in writing that
their biometric identifiers or biometric information were being
collected and stored, nor did it inform them in writing of the
specific purpose and length of term for which their biometric
identifiers or biometric information were being collected, stored,
and used.

By collecting, storing, transferring and using the Plaintiff's and
the Class members' biometric identifiers or biometric information,
Google violated the Plaintiff's and the Class members' rights to
privacy in their biometric identifiers as set forth in Biometric
Information Privacy Act, the suit says.

On behalf of himself and the Illinois Class, the Plaintiff seeks
injunctive and equitable relief as necessary to protect the
interests of the Plaintiff and the Class by requiring Google to
comply with the BIPA's requirements for the collection, storage,
and use of biometric identifiers or biometric information;
statutory damages of $5,000.00 per intentional or reckless
violation of BIPA and statutory damages of $1,000.00 per negligent
violation of BIPA, and attorney's fees and costs and other
litigation expenses.

Mr. Segal has owned a Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra phone equipped with
Google Assistant since September 2021.

GOOGLE, LLC is an American multinational technology company
focusing on search engine technology, online advertising, cloud
computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce,
artificial intelligence, and consumer electronics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
          Rachel Kesten, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG
          P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
                  afiorilla@lowey.com
                  rkesten@lowey.com

                - and -

          Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
          Eric S. Somers, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: 415-913-7800
          E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
                  esomers@lexlawgroup.com

GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Underpays Account Executives, Gregory Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CASEY GREGORY, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC
and GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00908
(E.D. Tex., October 21, 2022) is a class and collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an account
executive in Rosemont, Illinois from approximately June 2021
through July 2022.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated account executives were classified by the Defendants as
exempt from overtime. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours
per week during their employment with the Defendants, they were not
paid any overtime premium at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, says the suit.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated account
executives, the Plaintiff seeks to recover actual damages for
unpaid wages, statutory liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest at the statutory rate, attorneys' fees, costs, and
disbursement, compensatory damages and all further additional
relief provided under the IMWL, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.

The Corporate Defendants operate a national insurance agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Tel: (713) 523-0001
          Fax: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

                - and –

          Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 250
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Tel: (216) 696-5000
          Fax: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: 2nd Amended Case Mng't, Scheduling Order Entered
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX STORY, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00724-TJC-JBT
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered a second
amended phase one case management and scheduling order as follows:

  -- Deadline for disclosing expert
     reports (incorporating the parties'
     agreement re: deposition dates).

                               Plaintiff:    February 21, 2023

                               Defendant:    May 2, 2023

                               Rebuttal:     June 1, 2023

  -- Deadline to complete expert             June 30, 2023
     depositions:

  -- Deadline for all other discovery,       March 30, 2023
     including the filing of motions
     to compel, as previously set.

  -- Deadline for moving for class           July 19, 2023
     certification:

  -- Deadline for Defendant to respond       August 23, 2023
     to motion for class
     certification:

  -- Deadline for Plaintiff’s optional       September 6, 2023
     reply limited to 10 pages:

  -- Hearing on class certification          November 21, 2023
     motion:

Heartland Payment is a U.S.-based payment processing and technology
provider. Founded in 1997, Heartland Payment Systems' last
headquarters were in Princeton, New Jersey.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DNdF7W at no extra charge.[CC]

HP INC: Cepelak Loses Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CEPELAK, et al., v.
HP INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02450-V (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince
Chhabria entered an order denying class certification.

The Court said, "A further case management conference is scheduled
for November 30. In their joint case management statement, the
parties should make sure to address two questions. First, should
the denial of class certification be with prejudice? Second, if
not, should the plaintiffs be given leave to substitute new named
plaintiffs? At first glance, it seems unfairly prejudicial to HP to
give the plaintiffs another crack at class certification, given how
badly they have overreached in so many regards thus far, and how
much time and expense they have already put HP through as a
result."

The plaintiffs seek certification of eight classes across four
states.

For each state, they first define a Rule 23(b)(3) damages classes
of all buyers of any HP printer, on the theory that all HP printers
use color ink when printing what seem to be black and white or
grayscale documents. The plaintiffs also ask for these classes to
be certified for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and
alternatively request certification of issue classes under Rule
23(c)(4), with damages to be figured out later.

Second, the plaintiffs define injunctive relief classes of all
buyers of 28 models of HP printers that stop all printing when any
ink cartridge is empty.

The plaintiffs term the first set of classes the "underprinting"
classes and the latter set the "print-to-stop" classes, though
neither label has much connection to the conduct they complain of.

HP was an American multinational information technology company
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DLxdJC at no extra charge.[CC]

INDEPENDENT BANK: Fourth Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Grice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jamila Grice, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. Independent Bank,
Case No. 7:20-cv-01948-TMC (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Timothy M. Cain
entered fourth amended scheduling order as follows:

  -- Non-expert discovery relating to      December 9, 2022
     class certification shall be
     completed no later than:

  -- Plaintiff's motion for class          December 12, 2022
     certification shall be filed
     no later than:

  -- Mediation shall be completed          May 1, 2023
     in this case on or before:

  -- Counsel shall file and serve          June 1, 2023
     affidavits of records custodian
     witnesses proposed to be
     presented by affidavit at trial
     no later than:

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sMZfOt at no extra charge.[CC]

IQVIA INC: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Fischbein Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD E. FISCHBEIN, MD,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. IQVIA, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-05365-NIQA (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro entered a revised
scheduling order as follows:

   -- All fact discovery shall be                May 8, 2023
      completed by:

   -- The Plaintiff's expert reports             June 7, 2023
      shall be due by:

   -- The Defendant's expert reports             June 21, 2023
      are due by:

   -- The Defendant's rebuttal expert            July 14, 2023
      reports are due by:

   -- The Plaintiff's rebuttal expert            July 28, 2023
      reports are due by:

   -- All expert depositions shall               Aug. 28, 2023
      be completed by:

   -- The Plaintiff's motion for                 Sept. 26, 2023
      class certification shall be
      filed by:

IQVIA is an American multinational company serving the combined
industries of health information technology and clinical research.

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

KEYBANK NATIONAL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Brouty Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL J. BROUTY, MELISSA D. KAUFFMAN, AND LEBERTUS VANDERWERFF
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, KEYCORP, and
OVERBY-SEAWELL COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01885-CEF
(N.D. Ohio, Oct. 19, 2022) seeks monetary damages, restitution,
and/or injunctive relief regarding Defendants' cybersecurity
practices in violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act
and the New York General Business Law.

Overby-Seawell Co., which provides property-insurance verification
services for Key, informed Key on August 4, 2022, that an
unauthorized external party had gained remote access to OSC's
network and, on July 5, 2022, acquired certain information from a
number of OSC clients, including the personal identifiable
information of Key's customers.

According to the complaint, despite Key's representations that it
provided robust cybersecurity services, in reality, its security
program (and that, in particular, of the agents to whom it
entrusted information) was woefully inadequate. Key's and its
agents' unsound, vulnerable systems containing valuable data were
an open invitation for intrusion and exfiltration by
cybercriminals, who were seeking to exploit the valuable nature of
the information. The unlawfully deficient data security employed by
Key and its agents has injured tens of thousands of customers, the
Plaintiffs and putative Class members in this action, and its
failure to connect any fraudulent activity that its customers have
faced with the data breach reeks of a desire to avoid
responsibility, says the suit.

Keybank National Association is a mortgage lender and servicer that
operates in 15 states, and boasts $187 billion in assets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLC
          Western Reserve Law Building
          7556 Mentor Ave.
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953-8888
          E-mail: mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaleil, Esq.
          KALIEL GOLD PLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

LAS DELICIAS: Amador Sues Over Production Staff's Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER AMADOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAS DELICIAS IMPORTS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-03618 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 19, 2022) is a
civil action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Portal-to-Portal Act seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 during each seven day workweek while working for
Defendant and paid on a piece-rate basis.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from 2018 until September 5,
2022, as production employee in connection with its dairy business.
His primary job duties included packaging cheese and sour cream to
be delivered to Defendant's customers.

Las Delicias Imports LLC is in the dairy production, import and
distribution business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net

LOMPOC, CA: Manatt Secures Settlement in Pro Bono Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manatt on Oct. 25 disclosed that in one of the most successful
impact litigation cases brought against a federal prison for its
systemic failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a Manatt team
led by Naeun Rim and including David Boyadzhyan and C. Ryan Fisher
obtained final approval of a settlement in a pro bono class action
lawsuit brought against officials at FCC Lompoc and the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) for violations of the Eighth Amendment. Manatt
co-counseled the case with Bird Marella, the Prison Law Office, and
the ACLU Foundation of Southern California.

At the time the lawsuit was filed in May of 2020, Lompoc was 130%
overcrowded and was the site of one of the largest COVID-19
outbreaks in the federal prison system. In Torres v. Milusnic, Rim
and her team alleged that the communal nature of overcrowded prison
settings prevented incarcerated people from socially distancing or
taking other precautions and contended that the Bureau of Prisons'
leadership failed to follow Attorney General William Barr's order
to maximize the release of at-risk individuals to home confinement,
thus violating their Eighth Amendment rights.

The lawsuit alleged that the Warden of Lompoc and the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons failed to undertake reasonable
preventive measures, which allowed the virus to spread to 60% of
those in custody -- over 1,200 people -- and accordingly sought
declaratory and injunctive relief for improved conditions of
confinement, as well as a writ of habeas corpus for release.

The pro bono team won a preliminary injunction in July of 2020 that
require Lompoc to immediately review a provisional class of people
over the age of 50 or who had certain underlying health conditions
for home confinement and promptly transfer eligible people to their
homes. In subsequent motions, the team also obtained orders
prohibiting Lompoc from denying people home confinement based
solely on the basis of the amount of time served or the nature of a
prior offense. To date, 249 people have been transferred to home
confinement from Lompoc since the preliminary injunction was
granted.

The settlement agreement requires the BOP and Lompoc administrators
to:

Promptly review and transfer eligible class members to home
confinement in accordance with the preliminary injunction orders,
with substantial weight given to COVID-19 risk factors and without
denying anyone based solely on the amount of time served or the
nature of a prior offense.

Perform daily symptoms checks for people placed in quarantine.
Screen class members working in communal spaces for COVID-19
symptoms.

Ensure that those being forced to isolate in the Special Housing
Unit are treated as distinct from those being housed there for
punitive reasons, including by providing access to watch/clock,
radio, reading materials, personal property, and commissary. This
year, Rim is being honored by the National Lawyers Guild for the
leadership role she played in the class action. In addition, in
2021, ACLU SoCal awarded Rim with its 2021 Humanitarian Award,
recognizing the team's extraordinary advocacy in the Lompoc class
action lawsuit. [GN]

MAJOR LEAGUE: Discloses Private Info to Third Party, Hayes Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES HAYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P.,
Defendant, Case: 1:22-cv-05822 (N.D., Ill. Oct. 21, 2022) alleges
violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant
knowingly disclose to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc.
("Facebook"), data containing the  Plaintiff's and other
digital-subscribers Class Members' (i) personally identifiable
information or Facebook ID ("FID") and (ii) the computer file
containing video and its corresponding URL viewed ("Video Media")
(collectively, "Personal Viewing Information").

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

MLB ADVANCED MEDIA LP is an internet and media company. The Company
operates the official web site for Major League Baseball providing
news, schedules, standings and statistics from around the league,
as well as information on every team. MLB Advanced Media is based
in New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          73 W. Monroe, 5th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312)444-0734

MAMMOTH TECH: Leininger Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA LEININGER on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MAMMOTH
TECH, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00394-JZ (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   a. certifying a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
      comprised of:

      "all former employees of the Defendant who worked at, or
      reported to, or were assigned work from the facility
      located at 1250 Geneva Boulevard, Defiance, OH 43512 (the
      Facility) and were terminated, without cause on their
      part, on or about March 2, 2022 and thereafter, who do not
      file a timely request to opt-out of the class;"

   b. appointing her as Class Representative;

   c. appointing Gardner Firm, P.C., Lankenau & Miller, LLP and
      Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC as Class Counsel;

   d. approving the form and manner of Notice to the Class; and

   e. granting such other and further relief as this Court may
      deem proper.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 20,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sIg9xI
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
          182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          100 Church Street, 8th FL
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

               - and -

          John N. Childs, Esq.
          Angelina C. Gingo, Esq.
          BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND, LLC
          200 Public Square, Suite 3270
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 658-2155
          Facsimile: (216) 658-2156
          E-mail: jcmiller@bmdllc.com

MARYLAND: Police Officers File Race Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madeleine O'Neill, writing for Maryland Daily Record, reports that
three officers with the Maryland State Police have filed a proposed
class-action lawsuit over what they describe as widespread racial
discrimination within the department.

The complaint alleges MSP routinely disciplines officers of color
more harshly than white officers, denies promotions to officers of
color and retaliates against those who speak up about their
treatment.

MSP is already under investigation by the U.S. Department of
Justice, which is probing whether the department's hiring and
promotion practices are racially discriminatory.

The new federal lawsuit proposes a class made up of officers of
color who were disciplined, denied promotions or otherwise faced
discrimination from October 2019 to the present day. A judge would
have to approve the group before the lawsuit could move forward as
a class action.

The 36-page complaint was filed on Oct. 24 in U.S. District Court
in Greenbelt. It claims that MSP maintains "centralized
disciplinary policies and procedures that disparately treat
officers of color" compared to their white colleagues on the
force.

The plaintiffs are Byron Tribue and Matin Dunlap, Black men who are
currently officers with MSP, and Analisse Diaz, a Black Puerto
Rican woman who was terminated from MSP in 2019.

In a statement, MSP said the complaint is currently under legal
review and the department cannot share information about the
allegations in the lawsuit.

"The Maryland Department of State Police remains committed to
providing the highest quality of law enforcement services to the
people of Maryland, while ensuring the fair and equitable treatment
of all employees," the department said in the statement.
"Significant actions have been taken and are continuing to address
even the perception of racism or unfair treatment of any kind."

The complaint alleges that Tribue was suspended for 301 days while
he was investigated for leaving work one hour early to make up for
attending a meeting on one of his days off. This was a common
practice at MSP, according to the complaint, but Tribue, who was
known for raising concerns about racial discrimination, was treated
harshly over the timecard issue.

The drawn-out investigation and discipline process meant Tribue was
ineligible for a promotion that year despite ranking well on the
sergeant promotion list. A trial board ultimately issued a 10-day
suspension for the infraction, according to the complaint.

When Tribue eventually received the sergeant promotion, he was
assigned to the Rockville Barrack, which was a significant commute
from his home, instead of the Forestville Barrack, where he was
stationed.

The complaint also claims that MSP officials retaliated against
Dunlap after he complained that a white corporal placed a banana on
Dunlap's work vehicle. The corporal was not disciplined and has
been repeatedly promoted, according to the complaint.

After Dunlap complained, MSP reopened an investigation into a
complaint stemming from a traffic stop, suspended him for three
years and charged him criminally in the incident. The Baltimore Sun
reported in 2019 that prosecutors dropped assault charges against
Dunlap, who had been accused of striking a man with a baton during
the stop.

Dunlap remains an officer with MSP but has been denied
opportunities to work in specialized units, which benefit officers
seeking promotions, the suit contends.

Diaz alleges other racist incidents in the complaint, including
being told by a sergeant that he did not think it was a "big deal"
to say the "n-word." On another occasion, Diaz claims, she was told
MSP should hire her as cleaning staff, in an apparent reference to
her being Hispanic.

Diaz performed well as an officer, and her fluency in Spanish and
other skills were useful to MSP's Drug Enforcement Unit, according
to the complaint, but she was passed over when she applied to join
the specialized unit. A supervisor began retaliating against Diaz
when she was chosen for a prestigious training program, the
complaint claims, and wrote her a poor performance review.

MSP's Internal Affairs office investigated Diaz for nearly 18
months and ultimately proposed terminating her over what the
complaint describes as "low level mistakes." The complaint does not
detail what accusations led to Diaz's termination.

Caucasian officers have not been similarly disciplined for more
serious infractions, the complaint claims. Some white officers have
failed to report for duty because they were under the influence of
alcohol or got into vehicle crashes outside their assigned work
areas while on duty, but were not charged with offenses, according
to the complaint.

Other white officers engaged in excessive force or, in one case,
left a gun in a convenience store, and were not terminated, the
complaint claims.

The complaint also references previously reported incidents,
including the use of a paper shooting target that depicts a
cartoonish person of color at a gun range in Western Maryland and a
commemorative coin that used the phrase "Make Waldorf Great Again"
in reference to an anti-crime initiative.

According to the complaint, some other MSP employees have filed
discrimination charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and will be added to the lawsuit after they receive
notice of the right to sue from the agency.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Michal Shinnar, of Joseph, Greenwald
& Laake, P.A., did not immediately return a phone call seeking
comment on Oct. 25.

In a statement, MSP said the complaint is currently under legal
review and the department cannot share information about the
allegations in the lawsuit.

"The Maryland Department of State Police remains committed to
providing the highest quality of
law enforcement services to the people of Maryland, while ensuring
the fair and equitable treatment of all employees," the department
said in the statement. "Significant actions have been taken and are
continuing to address even the perception of racism or unfair
treatment of any kind." [GN]

MEDCAN HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Underpayment of Vacation Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanmala Subramaniamfuture, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports
that an Ontario court has certified a class-action lawsuit against
Medcan Health Management Inc., giving the green light to
approximately 700 current and former employees who claim they did
not receive vacation and statutory holiday pay on bonuses and
commissions.

Three former Medcan employees allege that for years they did not
receive the additional payments on commissions, which made up the
bulk of their remuneration.

Under the provincial Employment Standards Act, an employer owes
employees vacation and public holiday pay on all income, including
base salaries, commissions or bonuses. For example, a car
salesperson who earns a $1,000 commission for the sale of a car is
entitled to an additional 4 per cent in compensation, or $40, in
vacation pay. And an employee who has worked for more than five
years is entitled to 6 per cent in vacation pay.

"Most employees don't know that they are entitled to vacation pay
on all earnings, including bonuses. And there is a lot of
non-compliance out there -- many employers don't bother granting
that additional 4 or 6 per cent," said Andrew Monkhouse, a lawyer
for the plaintiffs and managing partner at Toronto-based labour and
employment firm Monkhouse Law.

Medcan is a private health care provider with clinics in Toronto
and Oakville, Ont. It offers chiropractic services, physiotherapy
and plastic surgery but also gives patients quick on-site access to
specialists (cardiologists, dermatologists, etc). The clinics each
employ more than 400 people.

In June, an Ontario Superior Court justice dismissed a motion put
forward by the plaintiffs -- Nicole Curtis, Amr Galal and Katrina
Buhlman -- to certify their case as a class action, arguing that it
was not the preferable way to demand compensation. But in
September, on appeal, a panel of judges overturned that judgment,
paving the way for Ms. Curtis, Mr. Galal and Ms. Buhlman, along
with 743 other former and current Medcan employees, to participate
in a class action.

"When vacation pay becomes a real issue is when people have high
levels of variable compensation. Millions of Canadian workers are
paid on straight commissions, meaning they might get their
commissions for sales and no vacation pay or holiday pay above
that. This case says employees can fight that," Mr. Monkhouse
said.

Court documents state that many of Medcan's employees earn variable
compensation, not just a base salary. In June, 2019, an employee
who was paid a salary plus bonuses and commissions told the company
that it had failed to provide him vacation pay on the latter two.
The clinic, according to documents, looked into the allegation and
found that, for more than 15 years, it had been calculating
vacation and public holiday pay solely on the base salaries of
employees.

In March, 2020, Medcan tried to remedy the mistake by giving
current and former employees back pay for the previous two years --
spanning December, 2017, and December, 2019. Both Mr. Galal and Ms.
Buhlman received the remedial payments for those two years but not
for previous years. This is the basis of the class action --
employees say they are owed vacation and public holiday pay dating
back to 2003.

In a statement to The Globe and Mail, Medcan spokesperson Bronwen
Evans said the company is not disputing that it made a "technical
error" regarding the payment of vacation and holiday pay on
commissions and bonuses.

"The class action was commenced only after Medcan had discovered
and rectified the problem and made the back payment. As a result,
the issues in dispute, being extremely narrow and individualistic
in nature, are whether Medcan is required to pay anything beyond
the two-year payments already made," Ms. Evans added.

Over the next few months, Mr. Monkhouse and his team will reach out
to hundreds of former and current employees of Medcan who may be
eligible to participate in the class action.

There is some precedent for a case of this nature. In 2018, as part
of a judgment on whether a former investment banker at UBS Canada
was entitled to his bonus in the year that he was fired, an Ontario
court ruled that the banker was entitled to vacation pay
commensurate with his bonus -- a sum of $87,472. UBS had argued
that he should only have received $5,700 of vacation pay, based
solely on his salary. [GN]

MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Ponce Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIBEL PONCE, an
individual, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES INC., an Illinois corporation;
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, LP, an Illinois limited partnership, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-00531-FWS-MRW (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. Determining that a class action is proper as to
      Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23;

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

   3. Certifying the following Class and Subclasses:

      (a) Class Members: All persons who are employed or have
          been employed by MEDLINE at any time within four years
          prior to the date this action was filed as an hourly,
          non-exempt laborer or related position who worked in
          California.

      (b) Regular Rate Subclass: All Class Members subjected to
          Defendant MEDLINE'S regular rate pay practices.

      (c) Overtime Rate Subclass: All Class Members subjected to
          Defendant MEDLINE'S overtime rate pay practices.

      (d) Labor Code, Section 203 Subclass: All Class Members
          who have separated their employment from MEDLINE in
          the State of California who, within three years of the
          filing of this action, have not been paid wages
          pursuant to Labor Code section 203 and are owed
          restitution for waiting time penalties deriving from
          wages.

      (e) Labor Code, section 226 Subclass: All Class Members
          employed within one year prior to the date this action
          was filed who were subjected to Defendant MEDLINE'S
          itemized pay record practices.

   4. Finding Plaintiff Maribel Ponce to be an adequate
      representative and certifying her as the class
      representative; and

   5. Finding Plaintiff's counsel Jack Perko of the Law Office
      of Jack Perko as adequate class counsel and certifying him
      as class counsel.

The Defendants allegedly maintained and enforced against the
Defendants' non-exempt employees, among others, the following
unlawful practices and policies, in violation of California state
wage and hour laws:

   (a) The Defendants have had a consistent policy of not paying
       Class Members for all hours the Class Members actually
       worked in violation of Labor Code and California Wage
       Order 9-2001 by illegally docking pay.

   (b) With respect to Class Members who either were discharged,
       laid off, or resigned, the Defendants failed to pay them
       in accordance with the requirements of the Labor Code;
       and

   (c) The Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of
       Class Members' earned wages and work periods.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 17,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gMJt3q
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Perko, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JACK PERKO
          26895 Aliso Creek Road, Ste. B66
          Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
          Telephone: (949) 390-4442
          Facsimile: (949) 916-1039
          E-mail: jack@jackperkolaw.com

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Wins Summary Judgment v. Vance, et al.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN VANCE, et al., v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered an order granting Microsoft's
motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs are longtime Illinois residents who, beginning in
2008, uploaded digital photographs, including photos of themselves,
to Flickr, a photo-sharing website.

The court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden
to identify specific facts from which a jury could reasonably find
that Microsoft unjustly retained a benefit to Plaintiffs'
detriment. To the contrary, the court agrees with Microsoft that
Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that would establish a
genuine issue of fact regarding whether Microsoft used Plaintiffs'
biometric information or identifiers to its benefit, much less that
Microsoft obtained some sort of monetary benefit from their
biometric information.

In 2014, Yahoo!, Flickr's then-parent company, publicly released a
dataset of about 100 million photographs that had been uploaded to
Flickr's website between 2004 and 2014 (the YFCC-100M Dataset). The
YFCC-100M Dataset included photos uploaded by both Plaintiffs.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3faHgP2 at no extra charge.[CC]

MUIR MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Medical Info, Class Action Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino, writing for Human Resources Director, reports
that a class action against Muir Medical Group IPA, Inc. claimed
that it failed to secure the private medical information of
thousands of patients and let a former employee download this
information and take it with her upon leaving her employment.

In the case of Vigil v. Muir Medical Group IPA, Inc., Muir's chief
executive officer notified certain patients that a data breach
might have affected their personal information. Muir discovered
that a former employee took certain information in its possession
before her employment ended.

Muir investigated the incident and stated that there was no
evidence that personal information was misused. However, Muir
admitted that the former employee downloaded copies of patients'
information, including insurance and clinical information.

The plaintiff, who was one of the patients who received Muir's
notice, sought to file a class action claiming breach of the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), violation of the
Customer Records Act, unlawful and unfair business practices under
the Unfair Competition Law, and negligence.

She alleged that, under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act's security management process standard, Muir's
employees should not have access to records regarding around 5,500
patients without a compelling reason and should not be able to take
sensitive patient information. She further claimed that Muir
negligently released patients' medical information without their
authorization.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The trial
court denied the motion upon finding, in connection with the CMIA
claim, that each class member would have to show that an
unauthorized party breached the confidential nature of their
medical information as required by the case of Sutter Health v.
Superior Court (2014).

The plaintiff appealed. The California Court of Appeal for the
First District agreed with the trial court's decision.

First, the appellate court ruled that the trial court properly
interpreted and applied the CMIA. Second, the appellate court held
that the plaintiff failed to show that a breach of confidentiality
could be established on a class-wide basis.

The appellate court found that the mere ability of an unauthorized
party to access information could not support the CMIA claim. Each
individual bringing a private claim should show that an
unauthorized party actually viewed their confidential medical
information and that the health care provider's negligence led to a
breach of the information's confidential nature, the appellate
court said.

Third, the appellate court determined that the trial court
appropriately found that individual issues would predominate over
common issues. While the evidence showed that the employee might
have viewed some information on the patient spreadsheet, it did not
prove that the information was seen by other unauthorized parties
or was posted or disclosed in a public forum.

Thus, most or all of the nearly 5,500 potential class members could
not maintain their CMIA claims against Muir unless they could
establish that an unauthorized party viewed their confidential
medical information and that Muir's negligence caused this
confidentiality breach, the appellate court concluded. [GN]

MUSIC BOX ATTIC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Music Box Attic, Inc.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Music Box Attic, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08934 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2022).

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

Music Box Attic -- https://www.musicboxattic.com/ -- offer a
massive selection of music boxes for sale, including jewelry boxes,
digital video boxes, snow globes, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MY 12 STEP STORE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against My 12 Step Store,
Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. My 12 Step Store, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08942 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2022).

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

My 12 Step Store, Inc. -- https://www.my12stepstore.com/ -- is a
compact shop carrying gifts celebrating sobriety, such as 12-step
books, journals & AA medallions.[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


NATIONAL GRID: Sunvestment Files Suit in N.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Grid USA
Services Co., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sunvestment Energy
Group NY 64 LLC, Saranac Lake Community Solar, LLC, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Grid USA
Services Co., Inc., Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Case No.
5:22-cv-01085-BKS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

National Grid -- https://www.nationalgridus.com/ -- provides New
York and Massachusetts with natural gas and electricity for homes
and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randall M. Fox, Esq.
          KIRBY, MCINERNEY LAW FIRM
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10177
          Phone: (212) 371-6600
          Fax: (212) 751-2540
          Email: rfox@kmllp.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in McFadden
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKERLY MCFADDEN, On
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER, Case No. 1:20-cv-00166-EGS-ZMF
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Zia M. Faruqui entered an order granting
joint motion to modify scheduling order as follows:

                Event                          Deadline

-- Amendments of Pleadings:               December 16, 2022

-- Motion for Class Certification         January 20, 2023
    (and Class Certification Expert
    Reports):

-- Opposition to Class Certification      March 24, 2023 (or 60
    (and Class Certification Opposition    days after prior
    Expert Reports):                       event)

-- Reply in support of Class              April 28, 2023 (or 35
    Certification (and Class               days after prior
    Certification Rebuttal Expert          event)
    Reports):

-- Pause of First Fact and Expert         June 30, 2023
    Discovery Period:

-- Open of Second Fact Discovery          Date of Ruling on
    Period:                                class certification

-- Close of Second Fact Discovery         60 days after ruling
    Period:                                on class
                                           certification

Nationstar offers mortgage services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Npyt8E at no extra charge.[CC]

NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT: Dryer Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Retirement
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Joy Dryer, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Retirement
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-03775-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Oct.
20, 2022).

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

Nationwide Retirement Solutions Inc. -- https://nrsforu.com/ --
provides pension and retirement plans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          425 Walnut St., Ste. 2315
          Cincinnatti, OH 45202
          Phone: (513) 381-2224
          Fax: (615) 255-5419
          Email: alysonb@bsjfirm.com


NETGEAR INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NETGEAR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-08882 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022) arises from the Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
https://www.netgear.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

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

Netgear, Inc. is an American computer networking company based in
San Jose, California, with offices in about 22 other countries. It
produces networking hardware for consumers, businesses, and service
providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                  Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal

NEW ALLIANCE: Mercado Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Owed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Mercado, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. NEW ALLIANCE INSURANCE BROKERS, INC., a
California corporation; INSPERITY PEO SERVICES, LP, a Delaware
corporation; INSPERITY, INC., a Delaware corporation; INSPERITY
HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; INSPERITY PRO SERVICES, LP,
a Delaware corporation; INSPERITY INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware corporation; INSPERITY GP, INC, a Texas corporation; LUIS
M. POVOLO, an individual; MONICA DE LA CRUZ, an individual; GINA DE
LA CRUZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 1000, inclusive, Case
No. 22STCV34073 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 21, 2022), is brought
against the Defendants pursuant to Labor Code for failure to pay
its current and former employees in California all wages owed.

The Defendants failed to pay its current and former employees in
California all wages owed; failed to provide complete and accurate
wage statements to its current and former employees in California
within the one year prior to the filing of this Complaint; failed
to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums to its
current and former employees in California; failed to pay overtime
wages; and unfair business practices based on the foregoing, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked full-time for the Defendants.

New Alliance Insurance Brokers, Inc. is a California corporation
licensed to do business in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Denis, Esq.
          Ann Anooshian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID R. DENIS, PC
          707 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 4700
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-625-0033
          Facsimile: 213-625-8833

NO'EAU DESIGNERS: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against No'eau Designers,
LLC. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. No'eau Designers, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09104 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

No'eau Designers -- https://noeaudesigners.com/ -- is a collection
of 100+ native Hawaiian businesses, made in Hawaii products and
locally based 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


ONE GROUP: Fails to Pay Servers, Bartenders Minimum Wage Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN ROY and JACKSON RECTOR, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated v. THE ONE GROUP, LLC, KONA GRILL
ACQUISITION, LLC, and TOG KONA GRILL COLUMBUS, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02784-RMR (D. Colo., Oct. 21, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant fails to pay their employees at the federally mandated
minimum wage rate for all hours worked and tip credit requirements
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants pay their tipped
employees, including servers and bartenders, below the federal
minimum wage rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provision
of the FLSA. Because Defendants paid their tipped employees at the
minimum of $2.13 per hour, any week in which a tipped employee was
required to pay for work related expenses for the Defendants'
business or completed online training without pay, their
compensation fell below the minimum wage rate, thereby negating the
Defendants' entitlement to claim the tip credit, the suit
contends.

One Group develops and operates restaurants, lounges and
hospitality management services venue.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                - and -

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Alanna Klein Fischer Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
          LAZZARO LAW FIRM
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250, 34555 Chagrin Blvd.
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pension fund Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System has
filed a class action lawsuit on Oct. 25 against software developer
Palantir Technologies Inc. ("Palantir" or the "Company") and
certain of its senior executives.

The suit, brought in federal court in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, was filed by leading investor
law firm Grant & Eisenhofer.

The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Palantir
Technologies Inc. (NYSE: PLTR) between February 16, 2021 and May 6,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action is captioned:
Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System v. Palantir
Technologies Inc., Alexander C. Karp, David Glazer, and Shyam
Sankar, caption: 1:22-cv-02805 (D. Co.). It is related to the
action titled Cupat v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al.,
1:22-cv-02384 (D. Co.).

Palantir builds and deploys software platforms to assist the U.S.
and foreign intelligence community in counterterrorism
investigations and operations. The Company has two operating
segments, commercial and government, with the latter primarily
serving agencies in the U.S. federal government and non-U.S.
governments. Palantir also invests in so-called "marketable
securities" consisting of equity securities in publicly-traded
companies.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
1934 Securities Exchange Act. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges
that throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose
that: (i) Palantir's investments in marketable securities were
having a significant negative impact on the Company's earnings per
share ("EPS") results; (ii) Palantir overstated the sustainability
of its government segment's growth and revenues; and (iii) Palantir
was experiencing a significant slowdown in revenue growth,
particularly among its government customers, despite ongoing global
conflicts and market disruptions.

Palantir has consistently described sources of geopolitical
instability and other disruptions -- e.g., armed conflicts,
economic crises, and the COVID-19 pandemic -- as tailwinds for its
business, given that the Company's products and services are
purportedly built to aid its customers in assessing and responding
to such disruptions.

Yet, on May 9, 2022, Palantir announced adjusted EPS of $0.02 for
Q1, compared to analyst estimates of $0.04 per share, noting on a
conference call that the "[f]irst quarter adjusted [EPS of] $0.02 .
. . includes a negative $0.02 impact driven primarily by unrealized
losses on marketable securities." The Company also disclosed that
government revenue grew by only 16% year-over-year for Q1,
representing a significant slowdown in revenue growth compared to
prior quarters, and that, for Q2, the Company expected $470 million
in sales, compared to estimates of $483.76 million.

On this news, Palantir's stock price fell $2.02 per share, or
21.31%, to close at $7.46 per share on May 9, 2022.

As multiple news outlets reported that day, Palantir's significant
decline in revenue growth, particularly from its government
customers, surprised investors, especially given the ongoing
geopolitical instability and other disruptions caused by, inter
alia, the ongoing COVID 19 pandemic and Russo-Ukrainian War -- that
is, precisely the type of destabilizing conditions that the Company
had previously touted as tailwinds for its business.

For investors who purchased or acquired Palantir securities during
the Class Period, you are a member of this proposed Class and may
be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, which is a
court-appointed representative for the Class, by complying with the
relevant provisions for the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). See 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court by no later than November 14, 2022. You do not
need seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
possible recovery. You may also retain counsel of your choice to
represent you in this action.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights, please contact Caitlin M. Moyna at
Grant & Eisenhofer at 646-722-8513, or via email at
cmoyna@gelaw.com. [GN]

PALEOVALLEY LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paleovalley, LLC. The
case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Paleovalley, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09064 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2022).

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

Paleovalley -- https://paleovalley.com/ -- operates as an online
store that provides nutrient density products.[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


PALETTE AND PARLOR: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Palette and Parlor
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Zarzuela, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Palette and Parlor Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-09143-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2022).

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

Palette & Parlor -- https://www.paletteandparlor.com/ -- offers a
considered collection of timeless modern furniture and decor for
home, office, and hospitality interiors.[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


PARK PLACE: Lovell Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAM LOVELL, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. PARK PLACE TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00595-CAB (N.D. Ohio), the Representative
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section
16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section
216(b):

   a. Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      under the FLSA on behalf of Representative Plaintiff and
      others similarly situated;

   b. Directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
      email message to the following:

      "All individuals employed by Defendant since April 13,
      2019, and continuing through the conclusion of this
      litigation, who have held the title of Field Service
      Engineer and were classified by Defendant as exempt from
      the overtime requirements of the FLSA and who worked 40 or
      more hours in any workweek during this period of time;"

   c. Approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join form;

   d. Directing the Defendant to provide within 14 days an
      electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel or comma-
      delimited format a roster of all individuals that fit the
      definition above that includes their full names, dates of
      employment, last known home addresses, and personal email
      addresses;

   e. Directing the Defendant to provide a Declaration that the
      produced roster fully complies with the Court's Order; and

   f. Directing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
      in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses,
      email addresses, or phone numbers are found for any
      potential opt-in plaintiff.

This case involves the Representative Plaintiff and the putative
collective members' similar claims that the Defendant maintained an
unlawful companywide policy of misclassifying its Field Service
Engineers as exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements.

The Representative Plaintiff and the putative collective can all
make substantially similar claims that no possible exemption
applies and that they were unlawfully deprived of earned overtime
premium payments.

The Defendant is a global company that provides third party
computer hardware repair services to companies and government
entities.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W8UbBu at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Nancy Erika Smith, Esq.
          SMITH MULLIN, LLP
          240 Claremont Avenue
          Montclair, NJ 07042
          Telephone: (973) 783-7607
          E-mail: nsmith@smithmullin.com

PENNSYLVANIA: Beadle Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Student Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA BEADLE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY
PARENTS' ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER
EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, Case No. 159750366 (Fla. Cir., Oct.
21, 2022) sues the Defendant for violating the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant began attempting to
collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff. The consumer Debt is an
obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a
transaction between the Defendant and Plaintiff.

On August 30, 2021, the Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to the Plaintiff. The Communication was sent from
deftprev@pheaa.org and delivered to the Plaintiff's personal e-mail
address.

The Communication advised that:

   "Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) is
   attempting to contact you regarding your past due student loan
   account. Options are available to resolve this issue, but you
   must call one of our representatives immediately."

The Communication was sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff at
10:37 PM in Plaintiff's zone. The Communication was received by
Plaintiff from Defendant at 10:37 PM in Plaintiff's zone.

The Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency is a
quasi-governmental agency that administers several state-level and
national higher education student financial aid programs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq
          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  jen@jibraellaw.com

PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Discloses Subscribers' Info, Braun Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON BRAUN and JIM CUMMINGS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-04185 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 19, 2022) is a
consumer digital privacy class action complaint brought pursuant to
the federal Video Privacy Protection Act on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and all persons with Facebook or Instagram accounts who
have digital subscriptions to, and have watched videos on,
inquirer.com, a multimedia website owned and operated by
Defendant.

The Plaintiffs' claims arise from Defendant's practice of knowingly
disclosing its digital subscribers' personally identifiable
information and viewed video media to a third party, Meta
Platforms, Inc. The Defendant knowingly installed the Facebook
Pixel tool onto inquirer.com and controlled which types of
information and data would be tracked and transmitted to Facebook.
In conjunction with this, Defendant purposefully and specifically
chose to: (1) track and record its digital subscribers' viewed
video media, (2) disclose that information to Facebook alongside
its digital subscribers' individual Facebook IDs, and (3) engaged
in this practice without its digital subscribers' knowledge or
consent, says the suit.

The Defendant chose to disregard Plaintiffs' and hundreds of
thousands of other digital subscribers' statutorily protected
privacy rights by releasing their sensitive data to Facebook.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit for legal
and equitable remedies to redress Defendant's practices of
intentionally disclosing its digital subscribers' information to
Facebook in knowing violation of VPPA, the suit added.

Philadelphia Inquirer LLC is an American media company that owns
and operates Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper and its corresponding
website, inquirer.com.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur Stock, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Ste. 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: astock@milberg.com
          
               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (847) 208-4585
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
                  ahoneycutt@milberg.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com

               - and -

          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com
           
               - and -

          Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
          E-mail: creilly@bursor.com

               - and -

          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Simon Grille, Esq.
          Kimberly Macey, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
                  sgrille@girardsharp.com
                  kmacey@girardsharp.com

PHILADELPHIA: Sargent Loses Renewed Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARICE SARGENT, et al.,
v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01509-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Chad F. Kenney entered
an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' renewed motion
for class certification.

The Court said, "In light of the pending appeal all further
proceedings and discovery shall be stayed until a determination is
made by the Third Circuit. After the appeal is resolved, this Court
will issue an Order scheduling a Rule 16, during which the timing
of filing of all motions and discovery will be scheduled."

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fh052Y at no extra charge.[CC]

POLY-WOOD LLC: Giannaros Files Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN GIANNAROS v.
POLY-WOOD, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10351-WGY (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the class and
granting final approval of the parties' amended class action
settlement agreement.

The Defendant does not oppose the relief sought in this motion, the
Plaintiff says.

Poly-Wood manufactures and distributes furniture.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 17,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W7GiUo
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Ryan Jr., Esq.
          BEATON AND PETERSEN PLLC
          11 Maple Avenue
          Shrewsbury, MA 01545
          Telephone: (508) 842-2540
          E-mail: stephen@beatonpetersen.com

               - and -

          Kevin Tucke, Esq.
          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          6901 Lynn Way, Ste. 215
          Pittsburg, PA 15208
          Telephone: (412) 877-5220
          Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
          E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com

PRO CUSTOM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sacca Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
DOMENICK SACCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v PRO CUSTOM SOLAR LLC d/b/a MOMENTUM SOLAR,
Defendant, Case No. Case 2:22-cv-06356 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2022)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

Plaintiff Sacca was employed by the Defendant as installer.

PRO CUSTOM SOLAR LLC, doing business as Momentum Solar, provides
renewable energy services. The Company specializes in solar
designing, engineering, permitting, installation, and activation of
every systems. Momentum Solar serves customers in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Smith Seeks Extension to File Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SMITH,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00355-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting an extension of time beyond the time
provided by the Court's uniform scheduling order to move for class
certification.

The Plaintiff filed this action in Alabama state court on May 10,
2022, alleging that the Defendant breached its insurance
obligations by underpaying him and other insureds after they
experienced total losses to their insured vehicles, the lawsuit
says.

Thereafter, on June 10, 2022, the Defendant removed to this Court.
The parties held their Rule 26(f) conference on July 6, 2022.
Counsel for the Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant have worked
together in other class-action cases involving similar claims, and
agreed to a schedule based on their shared experiences from other
cases.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 19,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W9L185
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy L. Judkins, Esq.
          Edmund A. Normand, Esq
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
          E-mail: amy.judkins@normandpllc.com
                  ed@ednormand.com
                  ean@normandpllc.com

               - and -

          Jonathan H. Waller, Esq.
          WALLER LAW OFFICE, PC
          3595 Grandview Parkway, Suite 500
          Birmingham, AL 35243
          Telephone: (205) 313-7330
          E-mail: jwaller@waller-law.com

PUZZLE WAREHOUSE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Puzzle Warehouse,
LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Puzzle Warehouse, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09088-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

Puzzle Warehouse -- https://www.puzzlewarehouse.com/ -- is an
online store for puzzles, games, and toys.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Seeks Reconsideration of Oct. 5 Order
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA STEWART,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of
Defendants in the State of California, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Case
No. 3:19-cv-02043-RBM-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Defendant will move the
Court to enter an order on November 21, 2022, reconsidering its
October 5, 2022 Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

The Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification on November
30, 2020. The Defendant filed its Opposition to that Motion on
January 29, 2021; and Plaintiff filed her reply on March 4, 2021.

In its October 5, 2022, this Court denied certification of
Plaintiff's proposed "Black PSR Class:"

   defined as "all current and former Black Patient Service
   Representatives of Defendant who were employed at any time in
   the State of California September 12, 2016, through the date
   of judgment" whom Plaintiff sought to represent on the theory
   that Quest improperly discriminated against certain PSRs
   based on their race.

Quest provides professional analytic or diagnostic services for the
medical profession.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DiQHUF at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Max Fischer, Esq.
          Karen Y. Cho, Esq.
          Anahi Cruz, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: max.fischer@morganlewis.com
                  karen.cho@morganlewis.com
                  anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com

RADIO SYSTEMS: Hernandez Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radio Systems
Corporation. The case is styled as Steven Hernandez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radio Systems
Corporation, Case No. 5:22-cv-01861-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., Oct. 21,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Radio Systems Corporation --
https://www.radiosystemscorporation.com/ -- is the world's leading
dog and cat products supplier.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amber Love Schubert, Esq.
          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F Jonckheer, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHER AND KOLBE LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 788-4220
          Fax: (415) 788-0161
          Email: aschubert@sjk.law
                 rschubert@sjk.law
                 wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com


RED CRAB: Court Tosses Wisdom Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wisdom v. Red Crab Long
Island Inc., et. al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01375 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Lee G. Dunst entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs must make any requests for relief
regarding a motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class certification,
including a request for a briefing schedule on such a motion, to
District Judge Allyne R. Ross consistent with her Individual
Practice Rules.

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

REED HEIN: Court Grants Agreed Bid to Certify Class in Adolph Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN ADOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; KERRI ADOLPH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REED HEIN & ASSOCIATES
d/b/a TIMESHARE EXIT TEAM; MAKAYMAX INC.; HEIN & SONS INDUSTRIES,
INC.; BRANDON REED, individually; and TREVOR HEIN, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01378 (W.D. Wash.), Judge Barbara
Jacobs Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants the parties' Stipulated
Motion to Certify Class.

The class will be defined as: All persons who paid fees to Reed
Hein for services to terminate their timeshare obligations, except
those persons who received refunds of the fees that they paid.

Brian Adolph will serve as the class representative and Gregory
Albert, WSBA No. 42673, will serve as the class counsel.

Within 14n days of the date of the Order, the parties through their
counsel will meet and confer to determine the most cost-effective
and efficient means to provide adequate notice to the class, and
advise the Court of any such agreement. If no agreement is reached,
the parties will submit to the Court, no later than seven days
thereafter, their proposed means of providing adequate notice to
the class.

The parties are to meet and confer on a proposed form of notice to
be mailed to the class by the Plaintiff and submit the same to the
Court promptly after the date of the Order. If no such agreement is
reached, the parties will submit to the Court their proposed form
of notice promptly thereafter.

With respect to the nature and form of notice, the Court will then
rule or schedule a hearing, as it deems necessary in its
discretion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2srmhu8n from Leagle.com.


SANDY SPIN SLADE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sandy Spin Slade,
Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Sandy Spin Slade, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08992 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2022).

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

Sandy Spin Slade, Inc. doing business as Skillastics --
https://www.skillastics.com/ -- is the all-in-one-solution for
After School and Physical Education instructors that make physical
activity simple.[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


SEPHORA USA: Wiretaps Sephora.com Visitors, Martin Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
RUTH MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SEPHORA USA, INC., a Michigan corporation; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-at-00837 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 23,
2022) alleges that the Defendant secretly wiretaps the private
conversations of everyone who communicates through the chat feature
at www.sephora.com in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.

To enable the wiretapping, the Defendant has allegedly embedded
code into its chat feature that automatically records and creates
transcripts of all such conversations.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant allows at least
one independent third-party vendor to secretly intercept, eavesdrop
upon, and store transcripts of the Defendant's chat communications
with unsuspecting website visitors -- even when such conversations
are private and deeply personal.

Sephora operates as a cosmetics and beauty stores. The Company
offers foundation sets, moisturizer, face powder, blush, contour,
eyeliner, nail polish, lipstick, face brushes, makeup remover, face
wash, toners, eye cream, face masks, perfume, body lotion, hand
cream, sunscreen, and other related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com

SFDISPLAY.COM LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sfdisplay.com, LLC.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sfdisplay.com, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-08941 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2022).

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

sfDisplay.com, LLC -- https://www.sfdisplay.com/ -- is an
eCommerce, retail company, specializing in quality, factory-direct
display cases.[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


SH GROUP OPERATIONS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SH Group Operations,
L.L.C., et al. The case is styled as Flor Jimenez, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SH Group Operations,
L.L.C. doing business as: 1 Hotels, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case
No. 2:22-cv-07745-RGK-JC (C.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

SH Group Operations, L.L.C. doing business as 1 Hotels --
https://www.1hotels.com/ -- offer a sustainable luxury hotel
experience where nature inspires everything .[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com


SHADES OF AFRIKA: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shades of Afrika. The
case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Shades of Afrika, Case No. 1:22-cv-08994
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2022).

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

Shades of Afrika -- https://shadesofafrika.com/ -- is a
community-minded gift shop offering books, aromatherapy & beauty
products, plus occasional events.[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


SHARKCLEAN LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sharkclean LLC. The
case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sharkclean LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09017
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2022).

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

Sharkclean -- https://www.sharkclean.com/ -- offers innovative
upright, cordless, stick, and robot vacuums for all cleaning
needs.[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


SHAY HUGHES: Court Dismisses Bartole Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCUS T. BARTOLE v. SHAY
HUGHES, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00257-PPS-JPK (N.D. Ind.), the
Hon. Judge Philip P. Simon entered an order dismissing the case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A because the complaint does not
state any actionable claims.

Mr. Bartole, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint against
his former attorney, Shay Hughes, both individually and as an
"organization/entity."

Bartole seeks to proceed on behalf of himself and a class of
unnamed inmates whom he alleges were harmed by the defendant, a
public defender named Shay Hughes.

In a nutshell, Bartole believes that Hughes violated various
professional responsibility and ethics rules, state statutes, the
Constitution, and federal laws by providing ineffective assistance
of counsel to the inmates confined at the Tippecanoe County Jail.
He alleges that Hughes violated his oath under the Indiana Rules
for Admission to the Bar and the Discipline of Attorneys "through
belief, thoughts, mindset, opinions, desires, interests,
personality, passions, experience, actions, unmoral
character/fitness; was and is unmoral, unethical, unfit,
untrustworthy, dishonest, unfair, unsuitable, mentally unstable,
emotionally unstable, fraudulent, deceitful, among many other
elements."

Hughes, in that vein, has allegedly defrauded the judicial system
and the public by accepting tax dollars to represent clients in an
unfit manner, claiming that he uses the Indiana Criminal Code and
the state bond policy to detain his clients and obtain a
"collective cash cow."

Bartole claims that Hughes applies the law unequally to
"socio-economic[ally] disadvantaged sex offenders," like Bartole
himself. Bartole claims that Hughes has failed to file various
motions on behalf of his clients that could have led to a reduction
of bond or outright release -- instead, Hughes uses the law to
"indefinitely confine/commit his clients" and pressure them to
accept plea deals even when they are innocent.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zpSFkI at no extra charge.[CC]


SHUMI TOYS & GIFTS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shumi Toys & Gifts,
Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Shumi Toys & Gifts, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09092 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

Shumi Toys & Gifts, Inc. -- https://shumistore.com/ -- specialize
in providing an exceptional collecting experience for all
collectors.[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


SKYBOUND LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skybound, LLC. The
case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Skybound, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08995-JPC
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2022).

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

Skybound -- https://www.skybound.com/ -- is an American
multiplatform entertainment company founded by Robert Kirkman and
David Alpert.[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

SMASHBURGER IP: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $5.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Smashburger agreed to pay $5.5
million to resolve claims that it falsely advertised its hamburgers
as containing "double the beef." Consumers do not need proof of
purchase to benefit from the settlement.

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Triple Double
hamburgers, Bacon Triple Double hamburgers, French Onion Triple
Double hamburgers and/or Pub Triple Double hamburgers from
Smashburger between July 1, 2017, and May 31, 2019.

Smashburger is a burger chain with locations around the country. In
2017, the company marketed its Triple Double burgers as containing
"double the beef."

According to a class action lawsuit against Smashburger, these
advertisements were misleading and false. Instead of containing
double the meat of a single burger, the Triple Double burgers
allegedly contained the same amount of beef as a single patty split
between two patties. Smashburger allegedly knew reasonable
customers would be misled by its "Double the Beef" advertisements,
"yet it adopted and continued to use those taglines."

Plaintiffs in the case claim that they were misled by Smashburger
advertisements and tricked into paying more for Triple Double
burgers based on the belief that they would receive twice the meat.
The customers say they wouldn't have purchased the Triple Double
burger if they knew the truth about how much meat the products
contained.

Smashburger hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $5.5
million class action settlement to resolve these allegations.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive either
a cash payment or a product voucher based on the number of food
products they purchased during the class period.

Class members can receive a $4 cash payment per purchased product
for a maximum payment of up to $20 per household without proof of
purchase. Class members can opt to receive vouchers instead of a
cash payment. Consumers who opt into vouchers will receive up to 10
vouchers with each voucher having a $2 cash value.

Payments may be reduced from the limits listed above if a large
number of class members participate in the settlement. Similarly,
class members may receive fewer than 10 vouchers if over 1.5
million vouchers are requested in total. Both payments and vouchers
will be reduced on a pro rata basis.

If fewer than 1.5 million vouchers are requested, the remaining
vouchers will be donated to charitable organizations, including
those benefiting first responders.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Dec. 19, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the Smashburger "double the beef"
false advertising settlement is scheduled for Jan. 30, 2023.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Jan. 17, 2023.

Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased Triple Double hamburgers, Bacon Triple
Double hamburgers, French Onion Triple Double hamburgers and/or Pub
Triple Double hamburgers from Smashburger between 01/07/2017 –
05/31/2019

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
01/17/2023

Case Name
Re: Smashburger IP Holder LLC, et al., Case No.
2:19-CV-00993-JAK-(JEMx), in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California

Final Hearing
01/30/2023

Settlement Website
BurgerSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Smashburger Settlement
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration
PO Box 5324
New York, NY 10150-5324
833-644-1593

Class Counsel
L Timothy Fisher
BURSOR & FISHER PA

Defense Counsel
Dean J Zipser
Mark A Finkelstein
Adina W Stowell
UMBERG ZIPSER LLP [GN]

SONIC CORP: Court Approves Class Settlement in Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: SONIC CORP. CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY
BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 1:17-md-02807-JSG (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge James S. Gwin entered an order:

   1. granting the parties' motion to approve the proposed
      settlement;

   2. certifying the nationwide class as defined in the proposed
      settlement;

   3. approving incentive awards of $7,500 each for Plaintiff
      American Airlines Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff Redstone
      Federal Credit Union, and Plaintiff Arkansas Federal
      Credit Union; and

   4. granting class counsel's motion for attorney's fees and
      costs.

Finally, the Court must ensure that the settlement's proposed class
comports with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's requirements for
class certification. Here, the parties propose to settle a
nationwide class comprising all the putative nationwide class's
claims arising from the data breach.

The Court previously certified a class of:

   "All banks, credit unions, and financial institutions in the
   United States that received notice and took action to reissue
   credit cards or debit cards or reimbursed a compromised
   account from any card brand involved with the Sonic Data
   Breach."

The Court reaffirms its previous reasoning for granting class
certification under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). The Court thus
finds that certifying a nationwide settlement class is appropriate
for settlement.

In 2017, a data breach compromised Sonic customer payment data.
Impacted consumers sued Sonic Defendants in multiple lawsuits.
After the MDL Court consolidated pretrial proceedings, those
consumer lawsuits settled.

In the current case, the Plaintiff Financial Institutions make
similar claims. The Financial Institutions sue for negligence
related to insecure systems that arguably allowed the data breach.
Plaintiffs allege that Sonic's negligence required financial
institutions to spend resources to respond to the breach.

Sonic designs and builds custom industrial mixing equipment.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Szrlrf at no extra charge.[CC]

SOUTHWELLNESS LLC: Lewis Files Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CLINTON LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWELLNESS, LLC, an Arizona
limited liability company; and TYLER SOUTHWELL and JASMINE
SOUTHWELL, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01808-SRB (D. Ariz., October
21, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment
practices that willfully and intentionally violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Statute.

The Plaintiff began working for Southwellness as a medical
assistant on July 6, 2022 until he was terminated on August 15,
2022.

The Plaintiff claims that while working for the Defendants, he
regularly worked for over 40 hours per week. However, because he
and other similarly situated medical assistants were misclassified
by the Defendants as independent contractor, they were not paid any
overtime compensation at the legally applicable overtime rate, the
Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover unpaid
overtime payments, liquidated damages, treble damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees along with costs, and all other legal and equitable
relief the Court deems just and proper.

Southwellness, LLC provides a wide range of medical care for
patients. Tyler Southwell is an Arizona resident and is listed in
filings with the Arizona Corporation Commission as the member of
Southwellness. Jasmine Southwell is the spouse of Defendant Tyler
Southwell and is joined in this action for the purpose of joining
the marital community of Tyler Southwell. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Brown, Esq.
          ERNST, BROWN & DRAPER, PLLC
          3303 E. Baseline Road, Suite 101A
          Gilbert, AZ 85234
          Tel: (602) 324-9644
          E-mail: tbrown@ebdlawyers.com

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: More Time to File for Class Cert Bid Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AIDAN BEVACQUA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., a Texas Corporation, Case No.
3:22-cv-01837-L (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enlarge the prescribed time to move for class certification under
L.R. 23.2.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NnRecC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Byron Goldstein, Esq.
          Laura Ho, Esq.
          James Kan, Esq.
          Mengfei Sun, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: brgoldstein@gbdhlegal.com
                  lho@gbdhlegal.com
                  jkan@gbdhlegal.com
                  brgoldstein@gbdhlegal.com
                  msun@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          Stephen T. Blackburn, Esq.
          2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 263-5797
          Facsimile: (214) 594-8986
          E-mail: Stephen.T.Blackburn@gmail.com

SPB HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Tipped Employees' Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MADASYN TORRES and TAYLOR BELL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SPB HOSPITALITY, LLC, LOGAN'S
ROADHOUSE OF TEXAS II, LLC and LOGAN'S ROADHOUSE OF TEXAS, INC.,
Case No. 5:22-cv-01152 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 21, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant fails to pay tipped employees federally mandated minimum
wage rate for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Accordingly, the Defendants required their tipped employees to
complete training related to new menu items, specials, and the
Defendants' policies. Each online training assignment lasted
approximately 20-30 minutes. This online training was required by
the Defendants, was directly related to the work the Plaintiffs and
Class Members performed for the Defendants, and was not voluntary.
Given that the Defendants failed to pay for this time, the
Plaintiffs and Class Members were paid less than the minimum tipped
wage, the Plaintiffs contend.

Additionally, the Defendants required their tipped employees to pay
for items for their uniform, including pants, belts, and shoes. The
costs for these items were not reimbursed by Defendants, the
Plaintiffs claim. The Defendants allegedly required the Plaintiffs
and the Class Members to perform non-tipped work 31 minutes to two
hours before the restaurants were open for business, throughout
their shifts, and after they were closed, the suit asserts.

SPB Hospitality is the leading operator and franchiser of
full-service dining restaurants, spanning a national footprint of
hundreds of restaurants and breweries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                - and –

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
          LAZZARO LAW FIRM
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Blvd.
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Seibert Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Seibert, an individual, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated v. SS&C TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, INTRALINKS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive; Case No. CGC-22-602536 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Oct. 21, 2022), is brought against the Defendants
who have consistently maintained and enforced against the Plaintiff
and Class Members unlawful employment practices and policies which
violate the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders.

The Plaintiff regularly worked and work in excess of 40 hours in a
week and 8 hours in a day as well as 7 consecutive days in a week;
however, they are not paid overtime for these hours in accordance
with California law. The Plaintiff was misclassified and regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week and 8 hours in a day as well
as 7 consecutive days in a week; however, he was not paid overtime
for these hours, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by and performed services for the
Defendants in both the County of San Francisco and out of his home
office in the County of Alameda.

The Defendants maintain offices in the County of San Francisco as
well as qualified to do business in California and regularly
conduct business in San Francisco County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Valles, Esq.
          Kayla M. Rathjen, Esq.
          VALLES LAW, P.C
          4104 Highland Avenue
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Phone: (415) 234-0065
          Facsimile: (510) 369-2075


STARKIST CO: Bid for State Law Claims Summary Judgment Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:15-md-02670-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Dana M. Sabraw entered an order granting in part and denying
in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment on certain
state law claims:

   -- The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in
      part and denied in part. The Defendants' motion is denied
      as to the End Payer Plaintiffs' (EPPs) and Commercial Food
      Preparers' (CFPs) South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices
      Act (SCUPTA) claim and South Carolina unjust enrichment
      claims.

   -- The Defendants' motion is granted as to the CFPs' and
      EPPs' multistate Cartwright Act class, such that South
      Carolina claimants are excised from that class.

   -- The Defendants' motion is granted as to Direct Action
      Plaintiffs (DAP) Flowers' South Carolina Antitrust Act
      (SCAA) claim.

   -- The Defendants' motion is denied as to prejudgment
      interest for DAPs Affiliated Foods Midwest Cooperative
      (AFMC) and Associated Wholesale Grocers (AWG).

The Defendants include StarKist Co., Dongwon Industries Co., Ltd.,
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC d/b/a Chicken of the
Sea International (COSI), 2 Union Group PCL, Del Monte Corporation,
Lion Capital (Americas), Inc., Lion Capital LLP, and Big Catch
Cayman LP.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fnLS4f at no extra charge.[CC]

SUBWAY IP: Faces DeLaRosa Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER DELAROSA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUBWAY IP LLC, Defendant, Case No.
159728990 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Ct., October 21, 2022) brings this
complaint as a class action alleging the Defendant of violations of
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The Plaintiff claims that she received a telephonic sales call from
the Defendant on or after July 1, 2021. Accordingly, the purpose of
the Defendant's telephonic sales calls was to solicit the sale of
its consumer goods and/or services, and/or to obtain information
that will or may be used for the direct solicitation of a sale of
consumer goods or services. In addition, the Defendant's telephonic
sales calls allegedly involved an automated system for the
selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a
recorded message when a connection is completed. The Plaintiff also
asserts that the Defendant did not obtain her prior express written
consent to receive such telephonic sales calls.

Upon information and belief, the Defendant has placed similar
telephonic sales calls to telephone numbers belonging to hundreds
of consumers in Florida without their prior express written
consent. As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic
sales calls, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals
were aggrieved. Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring
the Defendant to cease all telephonic sales calls made without
express written consent. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages, reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, and other
relief as the Court deems necessary.

Subway IP LLC establishes and operates restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SUE FISHER KING: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sue Fisher King Co.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sue Fisher King Co., Case No.
1:22-cv-08938 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2022).

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

Sue Fisher King Co. -- https://www.suefisherking.com/ -- is an
elegant shop for classic & modern home goods from dishware to
flatware to linens, plus jewelry.[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


SWEET HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JAYLON SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SWEET HOME HEALTHCARE OF OHIO, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01894 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 20, 2022) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Smith was employed by the Defendant as direct support
professional.

SWEET HOME HEALTHCARE OF OHIO, LLC is a domestic limited liability
company that provides live-in and live-out home healthcare, skilled
healthcare, companion care, and pharmacy services at facilities
located within this district and division, as well as other
locations throughout Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
          4106 Bridge Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 308-1522
          Facsimile: (888)604-9299
          Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
          THE FUCHS FIRM
          14717 South Woodland Road
          Shaker Heights, OH 44120
          Telephone: (216) 505-7500
          Email: josh@fuchsfirm.com

TA OPERATING: Main Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TA Operating LLC. The
case is styled as Trudy Main, Tashley Betts, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TA Operating LLC, Case
No. 4:22-cv-01033-JM (E.D. Ark., Oct. 25, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.

TA Operating LLC, doing business as Travel Centers of America --
https://www.ta-petro.com/ -- owns and operates gasoline service
stations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Wesley Burks, Esq.
          WH LAW
          1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Phone: (501) 891-6000
          Email: chris@whlawoffices.com


TCP HOT:  Class Action Settlement in Delcid Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OTTO DELCID, LUZ ROMAN,
MINA KALLAMNI, MARY MOLINA, CARLO GARCIA, and ANDREA FAHEY on
behalf themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TCP HOT
ACQUISITION LLC and IDELLE LABS, LTD, Case No. 1:21-cv-09569-DLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered an order:

   1. preliminarily approving this proposed class action
      settlement;

   2. preliminarily certifying the class for settlement
       purposes; and

   3. granting approval of the proposed notice plan.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DlWM2C at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
          Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq.
          Russell Busch, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-Mail: jczeisler@milberg.com
                  gwhitener@milberg.com
                  rbusch@milberg.com

THOMPSON SUSKIND: Quiroz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thompson Suskind,
L.P., et al. The case is styled as Yuri Castillo Quiroz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Thompas Suskind, L.P., Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22602539
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 21, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Thompson Suskind, L.P. -- http://thompsonsuskind.com/-- is a
construction company based in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN AND TILAJEF PC
          1180 S Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          LOS ANGELES, CA 90035
          Phone: (310) 277-0614
          Email: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


THORLEY INDUSTRIES: Scales Files Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Thorley Industries, LLC. The
case is styled as Juliana Scales, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Thorley Industries, LLC doing business
as: 4moms, Case No. 4:22-cv-06300-DMR (N.D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2022).

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

Thorley Industries, LLC doing business as 4moms --
https://www.4moms.com/ -- is dedicated to making innovative, easy
to use baby products that make life easier for parents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Fax: (612) 336-2940
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Terence Richard Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: (855) 843-5442
          Fax: (513) 665-0219
          Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com


TOTAL LONGTERM CARE: Gonzales Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Diane Gonzales, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Total Longterm Care,
Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2216121 was
removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 24,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01864-JVS-KK to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Total Longterm Care Inc is a company that operates in the Hospital
& Health Care industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Karl DiBona, Esq.
          KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM APC
          10940 Wilshire Blvd Ste 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (323) 857-5900
          Fax: (310) 275-6301
          Email: dibona@kokozianlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul Jarvis Cohen, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Phone: (213) 689-0404
          Fax: (213) 689-0430
          Email: paul.cohen@jacksonlewis.com


TRIQUEST INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triquest, Inc. The
case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Triquest, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08999
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2022).

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

TriQuest -- https://www.triquesttech.com/ -- specializes in
supporting CFOs and controllers who are responsible for directing
and managing the IT support within their organization.[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


ULTA SALON: Brito Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
LILLIAN BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 159738354 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Ct., October 21,
2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant made a telephonic sales
call to the Plaintiff's Telephone Number on or after July 1, 2021
in an attempt to solicit the sale of its consumer goods, and/or
services, and/or to obtain information that will or may be used for
the direct solicitation of a sale of consumer goods or services.
The Defendant's telephonic sales calls allegedly involved an
automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers
or the playing of a recorded message when a connection is
completed. Moreover, the Defendant made the telephonic sales calls
without obtaining the Plaintiff's prior express written consent.
Upon information and belief, the Defendant caused similar
telephonic sales calls to be sent to thousands of individuals in
Florida without their consent, says the suit.

Because the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls have
aggrieved the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated persons seeking an injunction against
future calls and to recover damages, costs, and attorney's fees
from the Defendant, and other relief as the Court deems necessary.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. is an American chain of
beauty stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UN DEUX TROIS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Un Deux Trois, Inc.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Un Deux Trois, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08932 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2022).

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

Un Deux Trois -- https://udtfashion.com/ -- is a fashion brand that
specializing in designing sophisticated outfits and clothing
products mainly for young girls.[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


UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Parcel
Service, Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. United Parcel Service,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09124-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022).

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

United Parcel Service -- https://www.ups.com/ -- is an American
multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management
company founded in 1907.[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


UOMO SPORT: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uomo Sport, LLC. The
case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Uomo
Sport, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06461 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2022).

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

Uomo Sport -- https://uomosport.com/ -- offers luxury sports
apparel for men – combining timeless style with innovative,
Italian fabrics for the ultimate performance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


US RADIOLOGY: J-Hanna Files Suit in D. Delaware
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Radiology
Specialists, Inc. The case is styled as Ariann J-Hanna, Nicole
Pyle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. US Radiology Specialists, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01384-CFC (D.
Del., Oct. 21, 2022).

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

US Radiology Specialists, Inc. -- https://www.usradiology.com/ --
provides health care services. The Company focuses on radiology
practices and diagnostic imaging solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          DELEEUW LAW LLC
          1301 Walnut Green Road
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Phone: (302) 274-2180
          Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com


VDC USA INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VDC USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VDC USA, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09061
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2022).

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

VDC USA -- https://www.vdcusa.com/ -- provides brand awareness,
insights, logistics and end-to-end merchant solutions for
businesses.[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


VIVINT INC: Seeks to Strike Certain Allegations from Rainey Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETHAN RAINEY, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. VIVINT, INC., a Utah
corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00926-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order dismissing and/or
striking certain allegations from plaintiff's complaint.

The Plaintiff alleges that Vivint violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
(the FTSA), Florida's analogue to the TCPA, based upon "telephonic
sales calls" he allegedly received on his cell phone after asking
to be removed from Vivint's contact list.

However, the Complaint fails to plead viable TCPA or FTSA claims
and is ripe for dismissal for several reasons:

First, the Plaintiff's "internal" Do-Not-Call ("DNC") claim under
the TCPA (Count I) should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to allege plausible facts supporting the essential elements
of that claim.

Second, the Plaintiff's claim for violation of the FTSA's
"internal" DNC provision (Count II) should be dismissed under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because that provision is facially
unconstitutional.

Third, the Plaintiff's "internal" DNC claim under the FTSA (Count
II) should also be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because allowing
Plaintiff to recover for the same alleged calls under both statutes
would amount to improper double recovery.

Fourth, while the Complaint should be dismissed for the myriad
reasons above, there are also grounds to strike certain allegations
therein.

In June 2022, the Plaintiff submitted an inquiry on Vivint's
website seeking information about Vivint's home security systems.
Vivint called Plaintiff in response to his inquiry.

The Plaintiff alleges that "when he heard the pricing and terms, he
informed Vivint he was not interested in purchasing a Vivint
system.

The Plaintiff does not specify the date on which this conversation
allegedly occurred despite alleging the precise date and time of
every other call and text he allegedly received. On June 30, 2022,
the Plaintiff alleges he received two text messages and one call
within a span of four hours asking him when he would like to
reschedule his installation appointment.

Vivint is a public smart home company in the United States and
Canada.

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

VOLCOM LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volcom, LLC. The case
is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Volcom, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09000
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2022).

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

Volcom -- https://www.volcom.com/ -- is a skate, surf & swimwear,
and snowboarding lifestyle brand that creates durable, stylish
clothing and accessories for every occasion.[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


VPC PIZZA MANAGEMENT: Ulrich Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beth Ulrich, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
VPC PIZZA MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05766 (N.D. Ill., Oct.
20, 2022), is brought challenging policies and practices of the
Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Constitution, and Ohio Revised Code, by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and its other servers at the applicable full minimum wage
rate.

The Defendant paid its servers the tipped minimum wage and utilized
the tip credit available under federal and state law to meet its
obligation to pay servers the mandatory minimum wage. However, the
Defendant did not satisfy the strict requirements under the FLSA or
Ohio law that would allow it to take a tip credit. The Defendant
also maintained a policy and practice whereby servers were required
to spend a substantial amount of time, more than 20 percent of the
time or for a continuous period of time exceeding 30 minutes,
performing non-tip producing side work related to the servers'
tipped occupation. The Defendant's practices resulted in it losing
the right to take a tip credit. Thus, the Defendant violated the
FLSA and Ohio Constitution by failing to pay the Plaintiff and its
other servers at the applicable full minimum wage rate, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a server at the Defendant's
Giordano's restaurants.

The Defendant owns and operates a chain of Giordano's pizza
restaurants throughout the country including Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, and
Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Max Barack, Esq.
          THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC
          6252 N. Lincoln Ave., Ste. 200
          Chicago, IL 60659
          Phone: 312-736-7991
          Email: max@garfinkelgroup.com


W.M. BARR & COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Racquel Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. W.M. Barr & Company, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02719 (W.D.
Tenn., Oct. 20, 2022), is brought under federal law, specifically
the Fair Labor Standards Act, against the Defendant for unpaid
overtime compensation, and related penalties and damages.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed and refused to pay
the statutorily required overtime premium for all hours worked over
forty in a designated workweek. Accordingly, she would typically
work 60 hours one week and 24 hours the next. Consequently, she
typically worked 20 hours of overtime every two weeks. The
Defendant compensated the Plaintiff at an hourly rate of $23.00 per
hour, paid bi-weekly. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff an
overtime premium for the hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week, but rather paid her the straight time rate of $23 for all
hours worked regardless of their number, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Machine Operator from
May 15, 2017 to September 23, 2022.

W.M. Barr & Company, Inc. is a Tennessee-based corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan G. Crone, Esq.
          Philip Oliphant, Esq.
          THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
          88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Phone: 800.403.7868
          Phone: 901.737.7740
          Fax: 901.474.7926
          Email: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
                 poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com


WALKME INC: Reece Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WalkMe, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Amy Reece, an individual, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated v. WalkMe, Inc., Does 1
through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22602550 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Oct. 24, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

WalkMe -- https://www.walkme.com/ -- provides a digital adoption
platform to let organizations measure, drive, and act to maximize
their digital transformation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Valles, Esq.
          VALLES LAW
          4104 Highland Ave.
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-3030


WHITE PLAINS: Blit Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against White Plains
Performing Arts Center, Inc. The case is styled as Brandon Blit, an
infant by his Parent and Natural Guardian, ERICA BLIT, on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated v. White Plains
Performing Arts Center, Inc. doing business as: White Plains
Performing Arts Center, Case No. 7:22-cv-08961 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20,
2022).

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

White Plains Performing Arts Center, Inc. -- https://wppac.com/ --
is professional regional theatre, music, comedy & theatre education
45 minutes from NYC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik Mathew Bashian, Esq.
          BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C
          500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 279-1555
          Fax: (516) 213-0339
          Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


YOUTUBE LLC: Schneider, et al., Seek Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA SCHNEIDER, UNIGLOBE
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, and AST PUBLISHING LTD., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE
LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move
the Court to enter an order on December 15, 2022, granting
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23.

The three named Plaintiffs bring this action against YouTube and
its parent company, Google, on behalf of themselves and four
classes of copyright holders alleging direct, vicarious, and
contributory infringement of their copyrights and alleging the
improper removal or alteration of CMI or the distribution of their
works knowing that CMI was removed or altered in violation of
U.S.C. section 1202(b).

YouTube is a video-sharing website in the world and has a massive
amount of copyright infringement. In the second half of 2021 alone,
YouTube's Content ID system automatically identified and managed
nearly 760 million instances of infringement on its platform.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 18, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sCULKx at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
          Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
          Carol O'Keefe, Esq.
          Steven M. Berezney, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 3101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
                  rewing@koreintillery.com
                  rcortazar@koreintillery.com
                  stillery@koreintillery.com
                  sberezney@koreintillery.com
                  cokeefe@koreintillery.com


                  - and -

          Joshua Irwin Schiller, Esq.
          Philip C. Korologos, Esq.
          Joanna Wright, Esq.
          Demetri Blaisdell, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          44 Montgomery St., 41st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 293-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 293-6899
          E-mail: jischiller@bsfllp.com
                  pkorologos@bsfllp.com
                  jwright@bsfllp.com
                  dblaisdell@bsfllp.com

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $52MM Reserves as of Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., for many years, has been a defendant in
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

PPG Industries states, "As of September 30, 2022, the Company's
total asbestos-related reserves were $52 million. The Company
believes that, based on presently available information, the total
reserves of $52 million for asbestos-related claims will be
sufficient to encompass all of the Company's current and estimable
potential future asbestos liabilities. These reserves, which are
included within Other liabilities on the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheets, involve significant management
judgment and represent the Company's current best estimate of its
liability for these claims.

"The Company monitors and reviews the activity associated with its
asbestos claims and evaluates, on a periodic basis, its estimated
liability for such claims and all underlying assumptions to
determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for these claims
is required.

"The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is
subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including
(i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) whether closed,
dismissed or dormant claims are reinstituted, reinstated or
revived; (iii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known
and future unknown claims; (iv) the amount of insurance, if any,
available to cover such claims; (v) the unpredictable aspects of
the tort system, including a changing trial docket and the
jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (vi) the outcome of
any trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vii)
the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure
for which the Company is allegedly responsible, and the claimants'
alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; and (viii) potential
changes in applicable federal and/or state tort liability law. All
of these factors may have a material effect upon future
asbestos-related liability estimates. While the ultimate outcome of
the Company's asbestos litigation cannot be predicted with
certainty, the Company believes that any financial exposure
resulting from its asbestos-related claims will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
liquidity or results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3fv8qjB


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Reports $1.39BB Asbestos Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., has net asbestos reserves of $1.39
billion and $1.41 billion at September 30, 2022 and 2021,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Travelers Cos. states, "In the third quarter of 2022, the
Company completed its annual in-depth asbestos claim review,
including a review of policyholders with open claims and litigation
cases for potential product and "non-product" liability. The number
of policyholders with open asbestos claims and net asbestos
payments were relatively flat compared to 2021. Payments on behalf
of these policyholders continue to be influenced by an increase in
severity for certain policyholders and a high level of litigation
activity in a limited number of jurisdictions where individuals
alleging serious asbestos-related injury, primarily mesothelioma,
continue to target defendants who were not traditionally primary
targets of asbestos litigation.

"The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder, as
well as recent settlements, policyholder bankruptcies, judicial
rulings and legislative actions.  The Company also analyzes
developing payment patterns among policyholders and the assumed
reinsurance component of reserves, as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience,
year-by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves, and the Company's evaluations have not resulted
in a reliable method to determine a meaningful average asbestos
defense or indemnity payment.

"The completion of these reviews and analyses in the third quarters
of 2022 and 2021 resulted in $212 million and $225 million
increases, respectively, to the Company's net asbestos reserves. In
both 2022 and 2021, the reserve increases were primarily driven by
increases in the Company's estimate of projected settlement and
defense costs related to a broad number of policyholders. The
increase in the estimate of projected settlement and defense costs
primarily resulted from payment trends that continue to be higher
than previously anticipated due to the continued high level of
mesothelioma claim filings and the impact of the current litigation
environment surrounding those claims discussed above. Over the past
decade, the property and casualty insurance industry, including the
Company, has experienced net unfavorable prior year reserve
development with regard to asbestos reserves, but the Company
believes that over that period there has been a reduction in the
volatility associated with the Company's overall asbestos exposure
as the overall asbestos environment has evolved from one dominated
by exposure to significant litigation risks, particularly coverage
disputes relating to policyholders in bankruptcy who were asserting
that their claims were not subject to the aggregate limits
contained in their policies, to an environment primarily driven by
a frequency of litigation related to individuals with mesothelioma.
The Company's overall view of the current underlying asbestos
environment is essentially unchanged from recent periods, and there
remains a high degree of uncertainty with respect to future
exposure to asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Uc65Zy


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $958MM Liability at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's total asbestos-related liability for
pending and future claims and defense and processing costs was $958
million at September 30, 2022 ($1,016 million at December 31,
2021), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Union Carbide states, "Each quarter, the Corporation reviews claims
filed, settled and dismissed, as well as average settlement and
resolution costs by disease category. The Corporation also
considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as
the nature of pending claims, trial experience of the Corporation
and other asbestos defendants, current spending for defense and
processing costs, significant appellate rulings and legislative
developments, trends in the tort system, and their respective
effects on expected future resolution costs. UCC management
considers these factors in conjunction with the most recent
actuarial study and determines whether a change in the estimate is
warranted. Based on the Corporation's review of 2022 activity, it
was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at
September 30, 2022.

"The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos‑containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against
a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered
any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries
incurred in fact resulted from exposure to UCC's products."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Uekm8c




                            *********

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 ***