/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221108.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 8, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 217

                            Headlines

7-ELEVEN INC: Patel Loses Bid to Stay Counter- & 3rd Party Claims
ALLSTATE LIFE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 14
ANADARKO E&P: BEK Bid to Disqualify Witness Nixed
APERTURE INVESTORS: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Affirmative Defenses in Gatchalian Suit Struck

BANK OF AMERICA: Pretrial Order & CMP Entered in Bruin Class Suit
BOSTON BEER: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
CALEXICO CINCO: Aguilar Sues Over Line Cooks' Unpaid Wages
CENTURYLINK INC: Ct. OKs Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing
CHEGG INC: Hearing for Securities Fraud Suit Set for June 2023

CHRIS SANNELLA: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces Lawsuit Over Benzene in Dry Shampoos
CLAUDE CHARLES: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff
CLEAN HARBORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alba Suit Alleges
CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in OGP Suit

DANTE WATTLEY: Nationwide Replaces Bell as Named Plaintiff
DONALD TRUMP: Court Approves Class Cert. Bid Briefing Schedule
ENVIVA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 2
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Breach Suits in Canadian Courts
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Stipulation in Dougherty OK'd

FIGS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 3
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Settlement in RICO Suit Initially OK'd
FONTERRA COOPERATIVE: OKs to Pay $27-M to Settle Milk Payouts Suit
FRESHWORKS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 3
GEICO GENERAL: Joint Status Report Submission Extended to Nov. 21

GITHUB INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Open-Source Licenses
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Sep. 2, 2020 Order
JOSEPH LEONARD: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff
KHAYLIE HAZEL: Martin Seeks Leave for Class Cert. Discovery
KING'S SEAFOOD: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $350,000

KITSAP RESIDENCES: Court Junks Settlement in Ong Suit
LABETTE COUNTY MEDICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Blood Suit
LEAD INTELLIGENCE: Faces Williams Suit Over CIPA Violation
LEJEUNE BAUVIL: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff
LOS ANGELES, CA: Appeals Class Cert. Order in BLM Suit to 9th Cir.

MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Faces Suit Over Alleged Telemarketing Calls
MAZDA MOTOR: Sonneveldt Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
MDL 2744: Goldsmith, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes
MDL 2744: Marble Suit Seeks Class Certification of Utah Class
MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Barton Suit

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Black Suit
MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Cuddy Suit
MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Drover-Mundy
MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Fieker Suit
MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Kimmel Suit

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Mulvey Suit
MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Nabong Suit
MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Nadel Suit
MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Pasternacki
MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Poppe Suit

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Shaffer Suit
MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Willis Suit
MDL 2903: Flores, Megan Seek to Certify California Class
MIDDLESEX WATER CO: Sued Over PFOA Contamination in Water Works
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Faces Several Securities Class Suits

MORGAN RUN: Discriminates Against Female Members, Suit Claims
NEPTUNE WELLNESS: To Settle Gong Suit Over SEC Filing Issues
NORMA MORRIS: Court OK's Nationwide as Named Plaintiff in Bell Suit
OAK HARBOR: Fails to Pay Pickup & Delivery Drivers' OT Wages
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Loses Bid to Junk Suit Related to Tax Collection

PLANNED COMPANIES: Gonzalez Hits Unlawful Labor Practices
POLISHED.COM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 30
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Spam Calls Invade Privacy, Sutherland Says
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Darnis Suit w/ Prejudice
SAFEMOON LLC: Crypto Investor Dropped Fraud Class Action Suit

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Mason Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
SEALED AIR: Settlement Deal in UA Local 13 Suit for Initial Nod
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING: Biddle Sues Over Unpaid Pages
SISENSE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges
SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Jan. 3

SONY CORP: Hit With Class Suit Over G Master Camera Lens Recall
STEPHANIE MORRIS: Fails to Pay Office Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA
TRANS UNION: Dillon Suit Alleges Illegal Collection of Biometrics
TRINITY TEEN: Sherman Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 10th Cir.
TWITTER INC: Sued Over CEO Elon Musk's Plan to Eliminate Jobs

U.S. BANCORP: Faces Buhrke Family Suit Over Drop in Share Price
UNITED SERVICES: Joint Stipulation to Extend Case Schedule OK'd
US FOODS: Attebery Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
US STEEL: Settlement in Shareholder Suit for Court Nod
VERISK ANALYTICS: Discovery Ongoing in Cantinieri Suit

WELLS FARGO: Barnett Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
WESTCARE CALIFORNIA: Cardenas Sues Over Illegal Background Check
WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit Still Pending
YALE UNIVERSITY: Wins Summary Judgment vs Vellali, et al.
[*] Consumer Class Action Suits Target Titanium Dioxide in Products


                            *********

7-ELEVEN INC: Patel Loses Bid to Stay Counter- & 3rd Party Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Dhananjay Patel, et al., Plaintiffs v. 7-Eleven, Inc.,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-11414-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge
Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts denies the Plaintiffs' motion for separate and final
judgment and for a stay of 7-Eleven's counterclaims and third-party
claims.

In June 2017, Local 7-Eleven franchise store owners and operators,
Dhananjay Patel, Safdar Hussain, Vatsal Chokshi, Dhaval Patel and
Niral Patel (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed this class action
alleging that 7-Eleven (1) misclassified the franchisees as
independent contractors instead of employees in violation of the
Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law, Mass. Gen. L. c. 149,
Section 148B (Count I) and (2) violated the Massachusetts Wage Act,
Mass. Gen. L. c. 149, Section 148 (Count II). The Plaintiffs also
asserted that 7-Eleven violated the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law,
Mass. Gen. L. c. 151, Sections 1, 7 (Count III) but voluntarily
withdrew that claim in July, 2020.

In response, 7-Eleven counterclaimed for: (1) declaratory judgment
that the Plaintiffs' franchise agreements are void if they are
deemed employees rather than independent contractors (Counterclaim
I), (2) breach of contract (Counterclaim II) and (3) contractual
indemnity (Counterclaim III). It also filed third-party complaints
against DPNEWTO1, Inc., DP Tremont Street, Inc., DP Milk Street,
Inc. and DP Jersey, Inc., the four corporations on behalf of which
one of the named individual plaintiffs signed Franchise Agreements
with 7-Eleven.

In March 2020, both parties filed cross motions for summary
judgment and the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.
This Court allowed summary judgment in favor of 7-Eleven based on a
purported conflict between the Massachusetts ICL and the federal
franchisor disclosure requirements in the FTC Franchise Rule.

Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
separate and final judgment on Counts I and II of their complaint
to allow immediate appellate review and to stay adjudication of
7-Eleven's counterclaims and third-party claims pending their
appeal. The Court allowed that motion and subsequently entered
judgment in favor of the Defendant on the Plaintiffs' claims
against 7-Eleven.

The Plaintiffs appealed that order to the First Circuit Court of
Appeals, which certified a question of law to the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court ("the SJC") in August 2021: Whether the
three-prong test for independent contractor status set forth in
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 Section 148B applies to the relationship
between a franchisor and its franchisee, where the franchisor must
also comply with the FTC Franchise Rule.

In March, 2022, the SJC answered the certified question, explaining
that the Massachusetts ICL both applies to the
franchisor-franchisee relationship and does not conflict with the
FTC Franchise Rule. The First Circuit then vacated the decision of
this Court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

With the SJC's guidance on the Massachusetts ICL, this Court
entered summary judgment for 7-Eleven in September 2022, on Counts
I and II, holding that the Plaintiffs are independent contractors
under the Massachusetts ICL. 7-Eleven's counterclaims and
third-party claims were not the subject of the summary judgment
motions and, therefore, remain pending. Trial is scheduled to
commence in early February 2023.

The Plaintiffs stress that their current request for a separate and
final judgment to allow them to seek immediate appellate review is
no different than their first one in 2020. Judge Gorton agrees with
7-Eleven that at this juncture it would be equitable and efficient
to consider whether the case can be resolved in its entirety by
summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs argue that their dismissed claims are analytically
distinct from 7-Eleven's counterclaims and third-party claims.
Judge Gorton disagrees. He says the Plaintiffs' claims for
independent contractor misclassification and Wage Act violations
and the Defendant's claims for breach of contract and
indemnification all turn on whether the Plaintiffs are independent
contractors or employees.

The Plaintiffs urge the Court to permit an interlocutory appeal
because the First Circuit's decision "might" moot a remaining claim
thus conserving party and judicial resources. Judge Gorton holds
the Court can resolve the case at bar in its entirety in a matter
of months either by summary judgment or trial and once the case is
fully adjudicated, either party may appeal it to the First
Circuit.

Having so concluded, Judge Gorton accepts 7-Eleven's proposal in
the recently-filed joint status report. 7-Eleven's motion for
summary judgment will be promptly briefed after which the Court
will decide it with due diligence.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gorton denies the Plaintiffs'
motion. He directs the Defendant to file its memorandum in support
of its motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims on Nov.
18, 2022. The Plaintiffs will file their memorandum in opposition
on Dec. 9, 2022.

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


ALLSTATE LIFE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 14
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN L. HOLLAND-HEWITT,
v. ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00652-ADA-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge  Stanley A. Boone entered an order
granting stipulated motion to extend deadline for limited class
discovery and filing deadlines for motion for class certification:

   1. Class certification motion         November 14, 2022
      filing deadline:

   2. Deadline to file opposition        December 9, 2022
      to class certification motion:

   3. Deadline to file reply in          December 30, 2022
      support of class certification
      motion:

   4. Class discovery deadline           December 9, 2022
      limited to Allstate's
      supplemental production and
      report:

On January 10, 2022,  the Court issued a scheduling order setting a
pre-certification discovery deadline of September 30, 2022, and a
class certification motion filing deadline of October 28, 2022.

On October 20, 2022, the parties' filed a stipulated motion to
extend these deadlines. The parties proffer that:

  -- Allstate is continuing to identify and produce documents
     responsive to Plaintiff's third set of discovery requests
     and diligently worked to identify the responsive documents;
     and

  -- Allstate will produce such responsive documents by October
     28, 2022;

Allstate offers life insurance policies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DOfst3 at no extra charge.[CC]


ANADARKO E&P: BEK Bid to Disqualify Witness Nixed
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOX ELDER KIDS, LLC, C C
OPEN A, LLC, and GUEST FAMILY TRUST, by its Trustee CONSTANCE F.
GUEST, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. ANADARKO E & P ONSHORE, LLC, ANADARKO LAND
CORPORATION, and KERR-MCGEE OIL AND GAS ONSHORE, LP, Case No.
1:20-cv-02352-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge William J.
Martínez entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' corrected motion
to disqualify expert witness Jaime Jost and to exclude expert
report.

The Court finds that Jost uses the terms "common" and "typical" in
their ordinary sense rather than as terms of art in the context of
Rule 23 jurisprudence. Jost does not opine that the class members
cannot be ascertained. Instead, she explains, based on her
knowledge of and experience with the oil and gas industry, why a
one-size-fits-all method for identifying absent class members is
flawed in her opinion.

The Plaintiffs bring this breach of contract lawsuit alleging that
the Defendants failed to pay them the correct monetary amount
pursuant to the terms of their surface owner agreements ("SOAs").

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ns9lOC at no extra charge.[CC]

APERTURE INVESTORS: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APERTURE INVESTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-08977-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's failure to maintain, and operate its website
https://apertureinvestors.com/ to be fully accessible for the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation
of 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.

Aperture Investors, LLC is an investment adviser registered with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.[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

ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Affirmative Defenses in Gatchalian Suit Struck
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HARRIET GATCHALIAN, Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC RECOVERY
SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-04108-JSC (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California:

   a. grants the Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendants'
      affirmative defenses; and

   b. denies the Defendants' motion for leave to amend their
      answers.

In this federal and state law fair debt collection practices
lawsuit, the Plaintiff moved to strike the Defendants' affirmative
defenses as insufficiently pled as a matter of law. The Defendants
responded by moving to amend their answer to withdraw and reassert
certain affirmative defenses. After carefully considering the
parties' motions, Judge Corley concludes that oral argument is
unnecessary and vacates the Nov. 10, 2022 hearing.

In their motion for leave to amend their answers, the Defendants
seek to assert three affirmative defenses: (1) failure to mitigate
damages, (2) the Plaintiff's damages being the fault of the
Plaintiff or a third-party not under the Defendants' control, and
(3) the debt collection calls were made with the Plaintiff's
consent.

The parties agree that if the Plaintiff seeks only statutory
damages then failure to mitigate is not a valid affirmative
defense. The complaint itself seeks only statutory damages on
behalf of the Plaintiff and the class. This limitation on damages
is reiterated by the Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendants'
motion to amend. As the failure to mitigate affirmative defense
would be futile as a matter of law, Judge Corley denies leave to
assert this defense.

Judge Corley finds that the Defendants have not explained how their
amorphous "Plaintiff's fault" or the "third-party fault" "defenses"
are affirmative defenses on which they bear the burden of proof at
trial. They have similarly not explained why they, rather than the
Plaintiff, bear the burden of proving each Defendant's conduct and
thus liability. Indeed, the Defendants do not cite a single case to
support this affirmative defense. Accordingly, leave to amend to
allege the "fault" defense is denied.

Finally, as for the "consent" affirmative defense, the Defendants
contend that the Plaintiff might amend the complaint to allege a
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") claim and the
Plaintiff's consent is a valid affirmative defense to a TCPA claim.
But if the Plaintiff is granted leave to amend, the Defendants will
have to respond to the amended complaint and can assert an
applicable TCPA affirmative defense at that time. Thus, Judge
Corley denies leave to amend to add a consent affirmative defense.

For these reasons, Judge Corley grants the Plaintiff's motion to
strike the Defendants' affirmative defenses and denies the
Defendants' motion for leave to amend. The Court will hold an
initial case management conference on Nov. 10, 2022, at 1:30 p.m.
via Zoom video.

The Order disposes of Docket Nos. 21, 22.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n75hw9e from Leagle.com.


BANK OF AMERICA: Pretrial Order & CMP Entered in Bruin Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMI BRUIN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A.,
Case No. 3:22-cv-140-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C), the Hon. Judge David S.
Cayer entered a pretrial order and case management plan as
follows:

  -- Rule 26 Disclosures:             October 31, 2022

  -- Class Certification              April 21, 2023
     Discovery Completion:

  -- Class Certification Expert
     Reports:

                       Plaintiff:     February 20, 2023

                       Defendant:     March 20, 2023

  -- Mediation:                       June 2, 2023

  -- Class Certification Motion:      June 21, 2023

The Court said, "Discovery in this case will be divided into two
phases:

   (1) Phase I will be limited to discovery on class
       certification issues and

   (2) Phase II will be discovery on the merits of the case.

Within 15 days of the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' expected Motion
for Class Certification, the parties will submit a Supplemental
Conference and Discovery Plan."

The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

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


BOSTON BEER: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 20, 2022, that a motion to dismiss a
class action complaint has been filed and awaiting the decision of
the court.

On September 14, 2021, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
by an individual shareholder in the United States District court
for the Southern District of New York against the company and three
of its officers.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between April 22, 2021 and
September 8, 2021. The plaintiff claims that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements or failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's business, operations,
and prospects.

On October 8, 2021, a nearly identical complaint was filed against
the company by an individual shareholder in the United States
District court for the Southern District of New York. The court
consolidated the two actions and on December 14, 2021 appointed a
lead plaintiff, who filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2022.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 16, 2022 and is now awaiting the court's decision.

The Boston Beer company, Inc. and certain subsidiaries are engaged
in the business of selling alcohol beverages.


CALEXICO CINCO: Aguilar Sues Over Line Cooks' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL AGUILAR, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. CALEXICO CINCO LLC d/b/a CALEXICO;
CALEXICO SEIS LLC d/b/a CALEXICO; CALEXICO 122 LLC d/b/a CALEXICO;
CALEXICO 278B LLC d/b/a CALEXICO; CALEXICO CARNE ASADA LLC d/b/a
CALEXICO, KATHLEEN OBRIEN, BRIAN VENDLEY, and PETER OLEYER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06345-DG-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2022)
seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime
due to time-shaving; frequency of pay violations; statutory
penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Mr. Aguilar was employed by the Defendants as a line cook at
Defendants' "Calexico Astoria" restaurant from November 2021 until
January 31, 2022.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of restaurants under the
tradename "Calexico" at several locations in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

CENTURYLINK INC: Ct. OKs Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lydia Bultemeyer, v.
CenturyLink Incorporated, Case No. 2:14-cv-02530-SPL (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order that:

  -- the Joint Motion to Extend Briefing is granted.

  -- the Defendant shall have until November 14, 2022 to file a
     Response to the Renewed Motion for Class Certification.

  -- the Plaintiff shall have until November 30, 2022 to file a
     Reply.

CenturyLink is a telecommunications company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TWj6Xw at no extra charge.[CC]


CHEGG INC: Hearing for Securities Fraud Suit Set for June 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chegg Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the hearing for the
putative securities fraud class action is scheduled in June 2023.

On December 22, 2021, Steven Leventhal, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, filed a putative securities fraud
class action on behalf of all purchasers of Chegg common stock
between May 5, 2020 and November 1, 2021, inclusive, against Chegg
and certain of its current and former officers in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No.
5:21-cv-09953), alleging that Chegg and several of its officers
made materially false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Leventhal Matter").

On September 7, 2022, Judge Edward J. Davila appointed the lead
plaintiff and approved lead counsel in this matter.

The parties agreed upon a scheduling for amending the complaint and
motion to dismiss briefing in early 2023, and with a hearing slated
for June 2023.

The plaintiff in this matter seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, and expenses, including counsel and expert fees.
The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend
itself in this matter.

Chegg Inc. operates a direct-to-student learning platform that
supports students on their journey from high school to college and
into their career with tools designed to help them to learn their
course materials, succeed in their classes, and save money on
required materials. The Company offers Chegg Services, which
include subscription services; and required materials that
comprise
its print textbooks and eTextbooks.[BN]


CHRIS SANNELLA: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW E. ORSO and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY,
INC., Plaintiffs v. CHRIS SANNELLA, Defendant, Case No.
6:21-mc-74-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division, grants Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.'s Motion to
Substitute Party filed on Oct. 10, 2022.

In other related cases, the Court denied Nationwide's motions for
final judgment without prejudice because it presented no evidence
showing that it was an assignee of the receiver. As such, the Court
ordered that Nationwide be struck as a plaintiff in some related
cases, again, because there was no evidence of any assignment.

In this case, Nationwide has moved for Substitution of Plaintiff.
It asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an assignee
of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's
capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC.
Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff in
this matter.

Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against
the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and Judge Irick
agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete
transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the
Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the
requested substitution is appropriate.

Upon consideration, Judge Irick grants Nationwide's Motion. He
concludes that a court in this district recently found that the
miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment
are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the
judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued
by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant
(the original party). A review of the evidence Nationwide has
submitted leaves no doubt that it is the proper party in interest,
and therefore it should be substituted as Plaintiff in this
action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/kp7r9ark from Leagle.com.


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces Lawsuit Over Benzene in Dry Shampoos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rob Tricchinelli at Bloomberg News reports that Church & Dwight Co.
and Unilever United States Inc. were hit with separate proposed
class actions alleging they failed to disclose the presence of
benzene, a human carcinogen, in dry shampoo products.

The lawsuits follow findings by Valisure, an analytical laboratory
that tested 148 batches from 34 brands of spray-on dry shampoo and
determined that 70% contained benzene. Dry shampoos are used to
refresh hair in between washes.

Sofia Goldgewicht says she has regularly used Church & Dwight's
Batiste dry shampoo products since 2018 and bought them under the
assumption that the labels were accurate and that the products were
safe.

The products are worthless in light of Valisure's finding that they
contain levels of benzene that exceed the Food and Drug
Administration's permissible amounts for cosmetics and
over-the-counter drugs, she says in a suit filed in the US District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Robert Rullo sued Unilever in the US District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on behalf of consumers who bought numerous
dry shampoo aerosol products that were recalled because of
potential benzene contamination.

Although Unilever recalled the products last month, it downplayed
the risks, Rullo alleges. Benzene exposure from body sprays is
especially troubling because the spray is applied directly onto the
skin, with the remnants in the air likely to be inhaled. That means
even a relatively low concentration limit can result in very high
total benzene exposure, he says.

And Unilever knew about the risk of benzene contamination as early
as July 2021, when the company's top competitors began recalling
other aerosol products due to the presence of benzene and faced
litigation based on those recalls, Rullo alleges.

Additionally, in November 2021, Valisure confirmed the presence of
benzene in aerosol antiperspirants and sunscreens, including
Unilever's Suave line of antiperspirants, he says.

Unilever was sued over its Suave products shortly afterward; the
litigation is pending.

The Valisure report also sparked litigation against other
companies. Procter & Gamble Co. and consumers got preliminary
approval late late month for a multi-million dollar settlement
resolving allegations that the company didn't disclose benzene in
certain antiperspirant products.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. also reached a settlement following
litigation over its sunscreens, but the deal has been challenged
after preliminary approval.

Causes of Action: Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act;
breach of express and implied warranty; unjust enrichment (Church &
Dwight). New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; breach of implied warranty;
fraudulent concealment; unjust enrichment (Unilever).

Relief: Compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; restitution;
injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs (Church & Dwight,
Unilever).

Potential class size: Unknown number of purchasers in nationwide
class, Florida subclass (Church & Dwight); nationwide class
(Unilever).

Response: Church & Dwight and Unilever didn't immediately respond
to requests for comment.

Attorneys: Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert represents
Goldgewicht. Squitieri & Fearon LLP and Joseph R. Santoli of
Ridgewood, N.J., represent Rullo.

The cases are Goldgewicht v. Church & Dwight Co., S.D. Fla., No.
1:22-cv-23585, complaint 11/2/22 and Rullo v. Unilever United
States Inc., D.N.J., No. 2:22-cv-06422, complaint 11/2/22.[GN]

CLAUDE CHARLES: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW E. ORSO and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY,
INC., Plaintiffs v. CLAUDE CHARLES, Defendant, Case No.
6:21-mc-139-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick
of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Orlando Division, grants Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.'s
Motion to Substitute Party filed on Oct. 14, 2022.

Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an
assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in
Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group,
LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff
in this matter.

Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against
Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and Judge Irick agrees,
that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer
of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant,
Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested
substitution is appropriate. Nationwide contends that the requested
substitution, while not mandatory, will assist in expediting and
simplifying the action for the Court and the parties as judgment
enforcement progresses.

Upon consideration, Judge Irick grants Nationwide's Motion. He
concludes that a court in this district recently found that the
miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment
are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the
judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued
by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant
(the original party). A review of the evidence Nationwide has
submitted leaves no doubt that it is the proper party in interest,
and therefore it should be substituted as Plaintiff in this
action.

The Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute
Nationwide as the named Plaintiff in this matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2s4bk4b3 from Leagle.com.


CLEAN HARBORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alba Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO ALBA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case 2:22-cv-07806 (C.D. Cal.,
Oct. 26, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages,
overtime, damages, liquidated damages, waiting time penalties,
reimbursement for expenses, restitution, penalites and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Plaintiff Alba was employed by the Defendants as staff.

CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. provides hazardous and
non-hazardous material management and disposal services. The
Company offers waste disposal and recycling, emergency response,
chemical packaging, and field, industrial, oilfield, exploration,
lodging, and in-site services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan Selik, Esq.
          Christine Zaouk, Esq.
          McCATHERN LLP
          523 West Sixth Street, Suite 830
          Los Angeles, California 90014
          Telephone: (213) 225-6150
          Facsimile: (213) 225-6151
          Email: eselik@mccathernlaw.com
                 czaouk@mccathernlaw.com

CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in OGP Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OGP, LLC v. Contango
Resources, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00382-JFH-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), the
Hon. Judge John F. Heil, III entered a class certification
scheduling order as follows:

   1. Motions for Leave to Amend            Nov. 30, 2022
      or Add Parties:

   2. Documents previously produced         April 26, 2023
      by the parties shall be deemed
      authenticated except as to those
      objected to:

   3. Private Mediation to be completed     May 31, 2023
      by:

   4. Joint Report on the status of the     June 7, 2023
      Private Mediation:

   5. The Plaintiff's Rule 26 Expert        June 22, 2023
      Disclosures and Reports for class
      certification purposes:

   6. The Defendant's Rule 26 Expert        July 28, 2022
      Disclosures and Reports for
      class certification purposes:

   7. Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert Reports   August 24, 2023
      for class certification purposes:

   8. Class Certification Motion and        September 7, 2023
       briefing:

   9. Response to Class Certification       October 13, 2023
      Motion and briefing:

  10. Class Certification Discovery         October 20, 2023
      Cutoff:

Contango Resources is doing business in oil and gas industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TXVr9o at no extra charge.[CC]

DANTE WATTLEY: Nationwide Replaces Bell as Named Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH D. BELL and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY,
INC., Plaintiffs v. DANTE WATTLEY, Defendant, Case No.
6:21-mc-49-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of
the U.S. District Cour for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division, grants Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.'s Motion for
Substitution of Plaintiff filed on Oct. 7, 2022.

In the Motion, Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing,
that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded
Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for
Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as
the named Plaintiff in this matter.

Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against
the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and Judge Irick
agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete
transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the
Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the
requested substitution is appropriate. Nationwide contends that the
requested substitution, while not mandatory, will assist in
expediting and simplifying the action for the Court and the parties
as judgment enforcement progresses.

Upon consideration, Judge Irick grants the Motion. He concludes
that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous
matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a
continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment.
Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by
Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the
original party). A review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted
leaves no doubt that it is the proper party in interest, and
therefore it should be substituted as Plaintiff in this action.

The Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute
Nationwide as the named Plaintiff in this matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4ex4betc from Leagle.com.


DONALD TRUMP: Court Approves Class Cert. Bid Briefing Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jessica Denson v. Donald
J. Trump For President, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04737-PGG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered an order
approving the proposed briefing schedule for Plaintiff's class
certification bid.

The Plaintiff filed the Motion on October 6, 2022. The following
day, the Court referred the parties to a settlement conference
before a Magistrate in light of the letters that they submitted in
connection with the Campaign's August 9, 2022 pre-motion letter. On
October 11, 2022, Magistrate Figueredo Scheduled a pre-settlement
conference call for November 2, 2022. At this juncture, it is
anticipated that the settlement conference itself will be conducted
in mid to late-November 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wnjtw7 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by

          Jared E. Blumetti, Esq.
          LAROCCA HORNIK ROSEN
          & GREENBERG LLP
          The Trump Building
          40 Wall Street, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 530 4832
          Facsimile: (212) 530  4815
          E-mail: jblumetti@hrgb.com

ENVIVA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Enviva Inc. (NYSE: EVA), and certain officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, and docketed under 22-cv-02844, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Enviva securities between
February 21, 2019 and October 11, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchase or otherwise acquired Enviva
securities, you have until January 2, 2023 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.[GN]

EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Breach Suits in Canadian Courts
-------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 20, 2022, that five putative
Canadian class actions, four of which are on behalf of a national
class of approximately 19,000 Canadian consumers, are pending
against the company in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

Each of the proposed Canadian class actions asserts a number of
common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and other
related relief in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident.
In addition to seeking class certification on behalf of Canadian
consumers whose personal information was allegedly impacted by the
2017 cybersecurity incident, in some cases, plaintiffs also seek
class certification on behalf of a larger group of Canadian
consumers who had contracts for subscription products with Equifax
around the time of the incident or earlier and were not impacted by
the incident.

Equifax Inc. is a data, analytics, and technology company based in
Georgia.


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Stipulation in Dougherty OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esperion Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the
court has approved the stipulation of settlement terms of the
purported class action Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics,
Inc., et al. on August 24, 2021.

On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and Tim
Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics,
Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089).

The lawsuit alleges that the Company and Mr. Mayleben violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17,
2015 public statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular
outcomes trial before approving the Company's lead product
candidate.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in
connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August
18, 2015, and September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

On March 12, 2021, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle
of the securities class action, and on April 26, 2021, the parties
entered into a stipulation of settlement to resolve all legal
claims, in which defendants expressly deny that they have committed
any act or omission giving rise to any liability under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the terms of the stipulation of settlement, which the court
approved on August 24, 2021, the Company and certain of the
Company's insurance carriers caused a payment of $18.25 million to
be made to the plaintiff class.

Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. is a public American pharmaceutical
company focused on the development of bempedoic acid, an orally
available small molecule designed to lower elevated levels of
LDL-C.

FIGS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise: (i) FIGS, Inc. ("FIGS" or the "Company") securities
between May 27, 2021 and May 12, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"); and/or (ii) FIGS stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Offering Documents issued in connection with FIGS' initial public
offering (the "IPO"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Founded in 2013, FIGS is a direct-to-consumer healthcare apparel
and lifestyle brand that primarily sells its products in the United
States through the Company's digital platforms. While FIGS is best
known for its medical scrubs, it also offers other healthcare
apparel such as lab coats, underscrubs, outerwear, activewear,
loungewear, compression socks, footwear, and masks.

On June 1, 2021, FIGS announced the closing of its IPO. Pursuant to
the Registration Statement, defendants issued to the public
30,344,317 shares of Class A common stock, including the full
exercise of the underwriters option to purchase an additional
3,957,954, at the price of $22 per share. The offering consisted of
4,636,364 shares sold by FIGS and 25,707,953 shares sold by Tulco,
LLC ("Tulco"), the Company's largest stockholder.

All the sales were issued pursuant to the Registration Statement.
The Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material
fact and omitted to state material facts that were required by
applicable law and necessary to make the statements therein not
misleading. In particular, the Registration Statement misleadingly
claimed that due to the Company's access to significant customer
data, it was able to maintain an efficient and steady supply
chain.

The truth was, however, that the Company's access to data did not
allow it to mitigate supply chain problems through predictable
sales. Instead, FIGS had to increasingly rely on air freight that
costs materially more than the overseas shipping it previously
relied on.

While the Registration Statement did contain a mention of air
freight, this in itself was misleading. The Registration Statement
blamed the COVID-19 pandemic for the use of air freight in the time
leading up to the IPO. The truth, was, however, that FIGS was
continually relying on air freight for its business.

Even after the IPO, as the Company continued to rely on air
freight, Defendants continued to claim that the Company's use of
air freight was transitory. For example, Defendants stated that the
use of air freight was at its "peak" during the fourth quarter of
2021, and that "we're pretty confident that we're going to see less
airfreight overall than we're seeing it in [the fourth quarter] as
we get into [2022]."

On May 12, 2022, the Company announced disappointing results and
slashed its expected sales, gross margin, and adjusted earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization because of
these "supply chain" issues. FIGS also admitted that not only did
they continue to rely on air freight during the first quarter of
2022, but that "[f]or the rest of the year, we plan to
significantly increase our use of airfreight to reduce our exposure
to these unpredictable transit times."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.21 per share, or
almost 25%, to close just $9.64 per share on May 13, 2022.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 3, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired FIGS securities, including
pursuant to the IPO, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights
and options please visit FIGS, Inc. Shareholder Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or
pallocco@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Settlement in RICO Suit Initially OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
Firstenergy Corp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2022, that on
July 27, 2020, July 31, 2020, and August 5, 2020, respectively,
purported customers of FirstEnergy Corp. (FE) filed putative class
action lawsuits against FE and FirstEnergy Service Company, (FESC),
as well as certain current and former FE officers, alleging civil
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
violations and related state law claims.

FE agreed to a class settlement to resolve these claims on April
11, 2022. In the fourth quarter of 2021, FirstEnergy recognized a
pre-tax reserve of $37.5 million in the aggregate with respect to
these lawsuits. On June 22, 2022, the court preliminarily approved
the class settlement and scheduled the final fairness hearing for
November 9, 2022.

Firstenergy Corp and its subsidiaries are principally involved in
the transmission, distribution and generation of electricity based
in Ohio.


FONTERRA COOPERATIVE: OKs to Pay $27-M to Settle Milk Payouts Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dairy giant Fonterra has agreed to pay A$25 million (NZ $27m) to
settle a class action claim brought by Australian farmers over a
cut in milk payouts six years ago.

The co-operative said it had settled without any admission of
liability and there would be no impact on its financial position.

"The settlement sum of A$25 million inclusive of interest and all
costs, if approved, has already been provided for in the prior
year's financial statements and will not have a material impact on
Fonterra Cooperative Group Limited's financial position" it said in
a brief NZX statement.

The case arose from claims by several farmers in the state of
Victoria that Fonterra had breached the terms of its supply
contracts and misled suppliers when it moved to cut milk payouts in
2016.

The farmers claimed Fonterra's milk payout was based on meeting or
exceeding those of competitor, Murray Goulburn, rather than in line
with their supply contracts.

Murray Goulburn cut its forecast price by as much as 15 percent and
shortly afterwards Fonterra moved to cut its payout by nearly as
much.

The farmers alleged the way Fonterra communicated the price change
amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct, and that it had acted
unconscionably causing significant financial difficulty and
distress.

Fonterra had always denied the allegations, which it said would be
vigourously defended, but had been in mediation with the claimants
ahead of the scheduled 15 November hearing date.

The claim was financed by a specialist litigation funding company
[GN]

FRESHWORKS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Freshworks Inc.
("Freshworks" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FRSH) pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
(collectively, the "Offering Documents") issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering (the "IPO" or the
"Offering"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California and alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

Freshworks, which is headquartered in San Mateo, California,
provides customer engagement software for businesses. On or about
September 22, 2021, Freshworks conducted its IPO, offering 28.5
million shares of its common stock to the investing public at a
price of $36 per share (the "Offering Price"). Defendants
anticipated generating gross proceeds of over $1 billion from the
IPO.

According to the Offering Documents, Freshworks' business had
"grown rapidly" in the lead up to the IPO, with the Company
observing "broad appeal of [its] products to customers of all sizes
and geographies." As a result, the Company's growth rates and
purportedly "healthy" net dollar retention rates, reflecting the
usage of its products from existing customers and the sale of
additional products to these customers, reached levels not
previously achieved, and there was no indication that either was
decelerating. Rather, the Offering Documents repeatedly and
prominently touted Freshworks' 118% net dollar retention rate for
the period ended June 30, 2021, which represented a noteworthy
increase from the 107%, 111%, and 112% net dollar retention rates
achieved as of June 30, 2020, December 31, 2020 and March 31, 2021,
respectively, as well as Freshworks' year-over-year revenue growth
rate of 53% (as of June 30, 2021), which likewise represented a
significant increase over the Company's 45% year-over-year growth
rate for the period ended December 31, 2020. Unbeknownst to
investors, at the time of the IPO, Freshworks' revenue growth and
billings had encountered obstacles.

Freshworks' stock declined after the Company announced its fourth
fiscal quarter of 2021 earnings on February 10, 2022, during which
it reported flat calculated billings growth (of 41% when normalized
for early renewals and reserve activity) and revenue growth
deceleration of only 44% year over year. On this news, Freshworks'
stock dropped 18%, closing on February 11, 2022 at $18.41 per
share.

Then, on May 3, 2022, after the market closed, Freshworks reported
its first quarter 2022 financial results, reporting a third quarter
of decelerating revenue growth and billings that missed consensus
estimates and declined 13% quarter over quarter. Many analysts
immediately responded by reducing their price targets. For example,
on May 4, 2022, after highlighting how Freshworks' revenue growth
has "decelerat[ed]" three consecutive quarters, including during
the period within which Freshworks went public, defendant JMP
Securities LLC dropped its price target from $41 to $29.

On May 5, 2022, Freshworks closed at $15.99 per share, down
approximately 5.72% over two days.

By the commencement of this action, Freshworks' shares traded as
low as $10.51 per share, a decline of nearly 70% from the Offering
price.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 3, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Freshworks common stock,
and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please
visit Freshworks Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact
Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]

GEICO GENERAL: Joint Status Report Submission Extended to Nov. 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND WILLIAMS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and CCC INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS
INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:19-cv-05823-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Court
entered an order extending deadline to submit joint status report
as follows:

The Parties stipulate and agree that good cause exists to extend
the deadline to submit a joint status report to November 21, 2022.

On July 29, 2021, this Court entered an Order staying this matter
and ordering the Parties to provide the Court with a joint written
status report and proposed case schedule within ten days after the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate in Lundquist v.
First Nat'l Ins. Co. of Am., Case No. 21-35126 (9th Cir. 2021).

On February 11, 2022, the Ninth Circuit filed its opinion in Lara
affirming Judge Bryan's denial of class certification in Lundquist
v. First Nat'l Insurance Co. of Am., Case No. 3:18-cv-05301-RJB.

On March 28, 2022, the plaintiffs-appellants in Lara petitioned for
rehearing and rehearing en banc.

On May 10, 2022, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing and rehearing en banc in Lara.

On August 19, 2022, the Parties filed a Stipulated Motion To Extend
Deadline To Submit Joint Status Report, Dkt. No. 107, which this
Court granted on August 22, 2022, Dkt. No. 108. The motion extended
the deadline to submit a joint status report to September 21,
2022.

On September 21, 2022, the Parties filed a Stipulated Motion To
Extend Deadline To Submit Joint Status Report, Dkt. No. 109, which
this Court granted on September 23, 2022, Dkt. No. 110. The motion
extended the deadline to submit a joint status report to October
21, 24 2022.

The Parties jointly and respectfully request an additional
extension of 31 days for the deadline to submit a joint status
report. The Parties are continuing to pursue settlement,
negotiations, and the requested extension will allow the Parties to
conduct those negotiations without the pressure of immediate court
deadlines.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DR7D6e at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101

                - and -

          John M. DeStefano, Esq.
          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Elizabeth T. Beardsley, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003

The Defendant is represented by

          Kathleen M. O'Sullivan, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 583.8888
          Facsimile: (206) 583.8500
          E-mail: KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com

                - and -

          Dan W. Goldfine
          Brian J. Hembd
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          1850 N Central Ave., Suite1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85004

                - and -

          Steven J. Pacini, Esq
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          200 Clarendon Street, 27th Floor
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 880.4516
          E-mail: steven.pacini@lw.com

                - and -

          Vanessa S. Power, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          600 University Street, Suite 3600
          Seattle, WA 98101

                - and -

          Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq.
          Jason R. Burt, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 11th Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637.2200
          E-mail: marguerite.sullivan@lw.com
                  jason.burt@lw.com

GITHUB INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Open-Source Licenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
GitHub Copilot, an AI-based coding product made by GitHub in
cooperation with OpenAI, appears to profit from the work of
open-source programmers by violating the conditions of their
open-source licenses. The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, a leading
class-action firm with offices in California and New York, and
Matthew Butterick, a lawyer and open-source programmer, are filing
a class-action lawsuit against GitHub Copilot, its parent,
Microsoft, and its AI-technology partner, OpenAI, on behalf of
open-source programmers for these potential violations of
open-source licenses. According to GitHub, Copilot has been trained
on billions of lines of publicly-available code, leaving
open-source programmers with serious concerns regarding license
violations.

"I am grateful to the programmers and users who came forward to
bring this case to fruition and ensure that corporations like
Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI cannot unfairly profit from the work
of open-source creators," said Joseph Saveri of the Joseph Saveri
Law Firm. He continued, "This case represents the first major step
in the battle against intellectual-property violations in the tech
industry arising from artificial-intelligence systems. In this
case, the work of open-source programmers is being exploited. But
this will not be the last community of creators who are affected by
AI systems. Our firm is committed to standing up for these creators
and ensuring that companies developing AI products are held
accountable under the law."

"As a longtime open-source programmer, it was apparent from the
first time I tried Copilot that it raised serious legal concerns,
which have been noted by many others since Copilot was first
publicly previewed in 2021," said Matthew Butterick. He continued,
"Because I'm also a lawyer, I felt compelled to stand up for the
open-source community. I've known Joe since he started the Joseph
Saveri Law Firm. He has built it into one of the finest
class-action firms in the country. I'm pleased to be teaming up
with Joe and his firm on behalf of the open-source programmers
whose rights are being violated by Copilot."

                           About The Firm

The Joseph Saveri Law Firm is one of the country's most acclaimed,
successful boutique firms, specializing in antitrust, class
actions, and complex litigation on behalf of national and
international consumers, purchasers, and employees across diverse
industries. For further information on our practice and
accomplishments on behalf of our clients, please visit
www.saverilawfirm.com or call us at (415) 869-6896.

                        About Matthew Butterick

Matthew Butterick is a lawyer, programmer, designer, and writer. He
has been professionally involved with open-source software since
1998. His books Typography for Lawyers (typographyforlawyers.com)
and Practical Typography (practicaltypography.com) are relied on
daily by lawyers and writers worldwide. For more information,
please visit matthewbutterick.com.

This lawsuit constitutes a critical chapter in an industry-wide
debate regarding the ethics of training AI tools with data sourced
without permission from its creators and what constitutes a fair
use of intellectual property. Despite Microsoft's protestations to
the contrary, it does not have the right to treat source code
offered under an open-source license as if it were in the public
domain. For more information, please see our investigation page
[GN]

INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Sep. 2, 2020 Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the
Second Circuit entered a summary order affirming the order of the
District Court dated September 9, 2020 that denied the motion of
plaintiff finding that the proposed second amended complaint did
not cure the deficiencies identified in the amended complaint.

On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action,
initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.

On June 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the
lawsuit, and on July 31, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of
its current and former officers as defendants.

The lead plaintiffs claimed to be suing on behalf of anyone who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
June 9, 2016, and September 20, 2017.

This lawsuit alleged that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public
disclosures during that period, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
“Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding
Ocaliva dosing and use, and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as
well as the Company's operations, financial performance, and
prospects.

The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, and rescissory damages.

On September 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On March 26, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and on March 27,
2020 the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company.

On May 8, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the
judgment and grant leave to file a second amended complaint.

On September 9, 2020, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion,
finding that the proposed second amended complaint did not cure the
deficiencies identified in the amended complaint.

On October 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on
January 25, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an appellate brief
challenging the March 27, 2020 judgment, the September 9, 2020
judgment, and other court orders.

On April 23, 2021, the Company filed a response brief in the Second
Circuit appellate proceeding.

On May 14, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a reply brief. On December 9,
2021, oral argument was held in the Second Circuit.

On June 16, 2022, the Second Circuit entered a summary order
affirming the order of the District Court dated September 9, 2020.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases,
including primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis ("NASH"), primary sclerosing cholangitis ("PSC")
and biliary atresia. The Company currently has one marketed
product, Ocaliva (obeticholic acid or "OCA"). Founded in 2002 in
New York, Intercept has operations in the United States, Europe
and
Canada.

JOSEPH LEONARD: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW ORSO and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC.,
Plaintiffs v. JOSEPH LEONARD, Defendant, Case No.
6:21-mc-34-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division, grants Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.'s Motion to
Substitute Party filed on Oct. 5, 2022.

In other related cases, the Court denied Nationwide's motions for
final judgment without prejudice because it presented no evidence
showing that it was an assignee of the receiver. As such, the Court
ordered that Nationwide be struck as a plaintiff in some related
cases, again, because there was no evidence of any assignment.

In this case, Nationwide has moved for Substitution of Plaintiff.
Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an
assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in
Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group,
LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the named Plaintiff
in this matter.

Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against
the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and Judge Irick
agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete
transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the
Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the
requested substitution is appropriate.

Upon consideration, Judge Irick grants Nationwide's Motion. He
concludes that a court in this district recently found that the
miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment
are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the
judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued
by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant
(the original party). A review of the evidence Nationwide has
submitted leaves no doubt that it is the proper party in interest,
and therefore it should be substituted as Plaintiff in this
action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yvuw5y7w from Leagle.com.


KHAYLIE HAZEL: Martin Seeks Leave for Class Cert. Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW MARTIN, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. KHAYLIE HAZEL
YEARNING LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00176-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an granting him leave to conduct
class certification and damages related discovery.

The Plaintiff alleges that Khaylie Hazel violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NqvFrH at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael T.Ramsey, Esq.
          SHEEHAN AND RAMSEY, PLLC
          429 Porter Avenue
          Ocean Springs, MS 39564
          Telephone: (228) 875-0572
          Facsimile: (228) 875-0895
          E-mail: mike@sheehanramsey.com

                - and -

          Max S. Morgan, Esq.
          Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
          1515 Market Street 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 587-6240
          Facsimile: (215) 698-0875
          E-mail: maxmorgan@theweitzfirm.com
                  ericweitz@theweitzfirm.com


KING'S SEAFOOD: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $350,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Blank at seafoodsource.com reports that Costa Mesa,
California, U.S.A.-based restaurant chain King's Seafood will pay
up to USD 350,000 (EUR 358,000) in a class action settlement over a
data breach.

U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California said King's Seafood must pay up
to USD 3,000 (EUR 3,072) per class-member for monetary loss arising
directly from documented identity theft "that is fairly traceable
to the data breach."

King's Seafood must pay up to USD 450 (EUR 461) per class-member
for expenses, fees, and lost time incurred as a direct result of
the data breach. The company will also provide class-members with
two years of free identity-theft protection and monitoring
services.

King's total monetary payment obligation is not to exceed USD
350,000, Carney ruled.

The operator of 12 restaurants was the victim of a cyberattack that
started in June 2021, in which the hacker was able to obtain
personal identifiable information, such as driver's license numbers
and credit card data, of employees and customers, according to a
letter King's Seafood sent to customers.

Former employee Jonathan Bowdle filed the class-action complaint in
October 2021, citing King's "failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information of its customers and
employees, without limitation, names, driver's license information,
payment card information, medical cards, telephone numbers, and
partially redacted Social Security number."

The restaurant chain failed to provide timely, accurate, and
adequate notice to Bowdle and other affected employees and
customers of "precisely what type of information was unencrypted
and is now in the possession of unknown third parties."

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for 13
February, 2023. [GN]

KITSAP RESIDENCES: Court Junks Settlement in Ong Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMMANUEL ONG, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KITSAP
RESIDENCES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05095-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
David G. Estudillo entered an order declining to adopt Lynn's Food
rule and denying the parties' joint motion without prejudice for
court approval of settlement.

The Plaintiff remains free to dismiss this case pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).

On February 16, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a collective action suit
against Kitsap pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The
Plaintiff has not, at present, moved for conditional class
certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

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


LABETTE COUNTY MEDICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Blood Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOROTHY BLOOD, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LABETTE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 5:22-cv-04036-HLT-KGG (D.
Kan.), the Hon. Judge Holly L. Teeter entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss:

      -- The named plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their
         claims in federal court. But the Court does not dismiss
         the case and instead remands the case to state court.

      -- The court further orders that the Defendant's motion to
         strike remains pending and should be transferred to the
         state court.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show
they have standing to bring any of their claims. The Defendant
sought dismissal on this basis. But this case is a removal case.
And courts routinely treat standing as a matter of subject matter
jurisdiction. When a case has been removed and a court finds it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must remand the case.
This command is mandatory."

Labette County Medical Center operates physician clinics and
provides inpatient and outpatient services to the residents of the
southeastern Kansas area.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U8Ms4L at no extra charge.[CC]

LEAD INTELLIGENCE: Faces Williams Suit Over CIPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022 that Plaintiff Loretta
Williams brought a putative class action against the company's
subsidiary Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya on June 27, 2022
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, titled Williams v. DDR Media, LLC and Lead
Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-03789.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code 631 ("CIPA") and invaded
Plaintiff's and class members' privacy rights when Defendants
purportedly recorded visitors' visits to the scrappyrent2 own.com
website without prior express consent. It is further alleged that
this conduct constitutes a violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. and the
California Constitution.

The Complaint seeks class certification, injunctive relief,
statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 for each violation,
attorneys fees and other litigation costs. The deadline to file the
Company's responsive pleading is November 21, 2022. At this time,
it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to
this matter.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSK), provides data analytics
solutions for customers in the insurance, natural resources,
healthcare, financial services, and risk management markets in the
United States and internationally. The Company was founded in 1971
and is headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey.


LEJEUNE BAUVIL: Nationwide Replaces Orso as Named Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW E. ORSO, Plaintiff v. LEJEUNE BAUVIL,
Defendant, Case No. 6:20-mc-34-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate
Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide Judgment
Recovery, Inc.'s Motion to Substitute Party filed on Oct. 4, 2022.

The Court previously denied Nationwide's motion for final judgment
without prejudice because it presented no evidence showing that it
was an assignee of the receiver. As such, the Court ordered that
Nationwide be struck as a plaintiff in this case, again, because
there was no evidence of any assignment.

Now pending before the Court is Nationwide's Motion for
Substitution of Plaintiff. It asserts, and provides evidence
showing, that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having
succeeded Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed
receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute
itself as the named Plaintiff in this matter.

Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against
the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and Judge Irick
agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete
transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the
Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the
requested substitution is appropriate.

Upon consideration, Judge Irick grants Nationwide's Motion. He
concludes that a court in this district recently found that the
miscellaneous matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment
are a continuation of the original litigation that produced the
judgment. Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued
by Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant
(the original party). A review of the evidence Nationwide has
submitted leaves no doubt that it is the proper party in interest,
and therefore it should be substituted as Plaintiff in this
action.

The Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute
Nationwide as the named Plaintiff in this matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/37xt4ckp from Leagle.com.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Appeals Class Cert. Order in BLM Suit to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting a motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled
Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Los
Angeles, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought this civil rights suit against the Defendants on June 5,
2020.

On May 26, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
injunctive relief class and damages class. The injunctive relief
claims are aimed at protecting Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to
protest. The damages class claims, as the proposed damages class
definitions contained in the Notice of Motion reflect, break into
three groupings: 1) The Arrest 22 Class, who were handcuffed and
held on buses without water and bathroom access 23 for hours; 2)
the Infraction Class, who were arrested when they should have been
released in the field on a promise to appear; and 3) the Direct
Force Class, composed of people who were struck by the improper and
indiscriminate use of batons and "less-lethal" weapons, or forced
to the ground, and who were not violently resisting arrest and did
not present an immediate threat of physical harm.

On October 3, 2022, Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

The appellate case is captioned Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, et
al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 22-80117, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
October 18, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES, et al.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are
represented by:

            Monique Amanda Alarcon, Esq.
            Bijan Esfandiari, Esq.
            Pedram Esfandiary, Esq.
            BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN
            10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600
            Los Angeles, CA 90024
            Telephone: (310) 207-3233

                   - and -

            Lindsay Brooke Battles, Esq.
            KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP
            975 East Green Street
            Pasadena, CA 91106
            Telephone: (626) 844-7660

                   - and -

            Colleen Flynn, Esq.
            MANN & COOK
            3435 Wilshire Blvd.
            Los Angeles, CA 90010
            Telephone: (213) 252-9444

                   - and -

            Denisse O. Gastelum, Esq.
            GASTELUM LAW, APC
            3767 Worsham Avenue
            Long Beach, CA 90808
            Telephone: (213) 340-6112

                   - and -

            Paul L. Hoffman, Esq.
            SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
            200 Pier Avenue, Suite 226
            Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
            Telephone: (310) 717-7373

                   - and -

            James Do Kim, Esq.
            SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN
            723 Ocean Front Walk
            Venice, CA 90291
            Telephone: (310) 396-0731

                   - and -

            Barrett Stephen Litt, Esq.
            MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP
            975 East Green Street
            Pasadena, CA 91106
            Telephone: (626) 844-7660

                   - and -

            Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq.
            Michael Seplow, Esq.
            SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
            9415 Culver Boulevard, Suite 115
            Culver City, CA 90232
            Telephone: (310) 396-0731

                   - and -

            Olu K. Orange, Esq.
            ORANGE LAW OFFICES
            3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
            Los Angeles, CA 90010
            Telephone: (213) 736-9900

                   - and -

            Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
            LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
            1158 26th Street, Suite 552
            Santa Monica, CA 90403
            Telephone: (310) 393-3055

                   - and -

            Matthew Daniel Strugar, Esq.
            LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR
            3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910
            Los Angeles, CA 90010
            Telephone: (323) 696-2299

                   - and -

            John Clay Washington, Esq.
            SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
            11543 W. Olympic Boulevard
            Los Angeles, CA 90064
            Telephone: (310) 396-0731

                   - and -

            R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
            BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN
            10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600
            Los Angeles, CA 90024
            Telephone: (310) 820-6231

Defendants-Petitioners CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., are represented
by:

            Jonathan H. Eisenman, Esq.
            OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY
            200 N. Spring Street
            Los Angeles, CA 90012
            Telephone: (213) 978-2212

                   - and -

            Michael Nelson Feuer, Esq.
            LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
            200 N. Main Street
            Los Angeles, CA 90012
            Telephone: (213) 978-8100

                   - and -

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

                   - and -

            Joseph Persoff, Esq.
            OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
            200 N. Main Street
            6th Floor, City Hall East
            Los Angeles, CA 90012
            Telephone: (818) 631-9250

MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Faces Suit Over Alleged Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter at classaction.org reports that a proposed class
action claims that Marriott Vacations Worldwide has illegally
placed unsolicited telemarketing calls without authorization, even
after consumers have requested that the company stop contacting
them.

According to the 20-page suit, call centers employed by Marriott
Vacations Worldwide have repeatedly contacted phone numbers on the
National Do Not Call Registry to solicit vacation rental services
and timeshares. The case alleges Marriott Vacations Worldwide
purchased consumer contact and demographic information, which it
has used to call individuals without consent, from multiple lead
generators.

The complaint alleges that during 2021 and 2022, the plaintiff, a
Texas consumer, received calls from Marriott Vacations Worldwide
offering vacation packages, even though the woman's number had been
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry and she never gave
the company permission to contact her. Further, the filing contends
that the plaintiff told Marriott Vacations Worldwide multiple times
to remove her from any internal call lists and to stop calling her,
but the company continued to contact her "many times."

Per the suit, several of Marriott Vacations Worldwide's
"overzealous" telemarketing practices, such as contacting phone
numbers listed on the Do Not Call Registry without obtaining prior
express written consent and continuing to call after receiving
requests to stop, are prohibited under the federal Telephone
Consumer Privacy Act (TCPA).

Additionally, the complaint charges that Marriott Vacations
Worldwide has illegally placed more than one unsolicited phone call
to the consumer within a 12-month period, and used a pre-recorded
or automatic telephone dialing system to place calls without
securing permission beforehand.

The lawsuit looks to stop Marriott Vacations Worldwide's alleged
misconduct, which has allegedly caused consumers harm in the form
of "aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily
accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone
calls, as well as the monies paid to their carriers for the receipt
of such telephone calls."

The suit looks to represent anyone in the United States who, within
the past four years, received more than one telephone call within a
12-month period from Marriott Vacations Worldwide, or anyone on its
behalf, to a phone number that had been registered with the
National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days. [GN]

MAZDA MOTOR: Sonneveldt Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY SONNEVELDT, et al.,
v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. D/B/A MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN
OPERATIONS and MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, Case No.
8:19-cv-01298-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order:

  -- denying motions to exclude expert testimony; and

  -- granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for
     class certification.

     The following eight Classes are certified under Rule 23(a)
     and 23(b)(3):

     1. The California Class:

        "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an
        authorized Mazda dealership in the State of California
        for personal, family, or household purposes;"

     2. The Song-Beverly Class:

        "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from an
        authorized Mazda dealership in the State of California
        for personal, family, or household purposes;"

     3. The Massachusetts Class:

        "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an
        authorized Mazda dealership in the State of
        Massachusetts for personal, or household purposes;"

     4. The Michigan Class:

        "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle in the State
        of Michigan for personal, family, or household purposes.

     5. The Missouri Class:

        "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle in the State
        of Missouri for personal, family, or household
        purposes;"

     6. The Ohio Class:

        "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an
        authorized Mazda dealership in the State of Ohio;"

     7. The Texas Class:

        "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an
        authorized Mazda dealership in the State of Texas;"

     8. The Virginia Class:

        "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle in the State
        of Virginia for personal, family, or household
        purposes;"

  -- appointng Plaintiffs Terry Sonneveldt, Esther Wright
     Schneider, Jean Levasseur, Tim Halwas, Erin Matheny, Lewis
     Delvecchio, Jon Sowards, Lawrence Bohana, Monika Bohana,
     David Dennis, and Jaqueline S. Aslan as Class
     Representatives of the Classes that they seek to represent;

  -- appointing the law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
     LLP, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, The Miller Law Firm,
     P.C., and Kiesel Law LLP as Class Counsel in this case;

  -- denying certification of Plaintiffs' proposed Louisiana and
     North Carolina Classes; and

  -- directing the parties to meet and confer and to submit an
     agreed-upon form of class notice that will advise class
     members of, among other things, the damages sought and
     their rights to intervene, opt out, submit comments, and
     contact class counsel.

The Plaintiffs contend that certification is appropriate because
the engines of all the Vehicles contain identical or substantially
similar water pumps that share the same design defect.

The Plaintiffs' defect theory relies in large part on the opinions
of their engineering expert, Dr. Christopher White. White opines
that the water pumps in the Class Vehicles are defective because a
key component part of those pumps' mechanical seal, which prevents
coolant from flowing into the drive shaft side of the pump and into
the engine's oil pan, is defective.

Specifically, White contends that the water pumps' elastomer
bellows is defectively designed because it is made of hydrogenated
acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR) and is in constant,
unshielded contact with high temperature coolant. Because the HNBR
bellows is constantly exposed to high temperature coolant, it
degrades and loses elasticity or cracks.

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

MDL 2744: Goldsmith, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC
GEARSHIFT LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02744-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. Certifying two plaintiff classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
      P. 23(a) and (b)(3) defined as follows:

      "All persons or entities who purchased or leased a "Class
      Vehicle" which means a 2012-2014 Dodge Charger, 2012-2014
      Chrysler 300, or 2014-2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee equipped
      with a monostable shifter (Class Vehicles) during the
      class period of 2011 until April 22, 2016 where the Class
      Vehicle was purchased in California but excluding every
      person who has brought a claim against FCA US LLC alleging
      recovery for bodily injuries caused by those vehicles
      under any legal theory;" and

      "All persons or entities who purchased or leased a "Class
      Vehicle" which means a 2012-2014 Dodge Charger, 2012-2014
      Chrysler 300, or 2014-2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee equipped
      with a monostable shifter ("Class Vehicles") during the
      class period of 2011 until April 22, 2016 where the Class
      Vehicle was purchased in New York but excluding every
      person who has brought a claim against FCA US LLC alleging
      recovery for bodily injuries caused by those vehicles
      under any legal theory;"

   2. Appointing the following named Plaintiffs as Class
      Representatives:

      -- David Goldsmith (California), Michael Vincent Nathan,
         Jr. (California),

      -- John Lynd (New York), and

      -- Janella Mack (New York);

   3. Appointing the following leadership structure pursuant to
      Rule 23(g):

      a. E. Powell Miller and Steve W. Berman as Lead Counsel
         and Chairs of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee; and

      b. Joseph Meltzer, Gregory Coleman, Daniel Gustafson, and
         Robert Shelquist as members of the Plaintiffs’ Steering

         Committee.

   4. Providing any other appropriate relief in support of class
      certification.

In accordance with L.R. 7.1(a), the Plaintiffs' counsel sought the
concurrence of Defendant's counsel in the relief sought by this
Motion on October 12, 2022, but concurrence was not obtained.

FCA allegedly failed to disclose that at least 131,048 Class
Vehicles FCA sold or leased to consumers in California and New York
contained serious usability flaws in the monostable gear shifter.
These usability flaws affected the central functionality of the
Class Vehicles, as well as their safe and proper operation.

The Plaintiffs contend that they satisfy all the elements of Rule
23(a) and (b)(3).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SYJIWC
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  dal@millerlawpc.com

                - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

          Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 N. Lake Ave, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  tgraden@ktmc.com

                - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Adam E. Edwards, Esq.
          William A. Ladnier, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: gcoleman@milberg.com
                  msilvey@milberg.com
                  aedwards@milberg.com
                  wladnier@milberg.com

                - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GULEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com

                - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rkshelquist@loclaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

MDL 2744: Marble Suit Seeks Class Certification of Utah Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC
GEARSHIFT LITIGATION (MDL 2744), Case No. 2:16-md-02744-DML-DRG
(E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff Trevor Marble asks the Court to enter
an order:

   1. Certifying the following Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)
      (3):

      "All persons or entities who have purchased or leased a
      2012-2014 Dodge Charger, 2012-2014 Chrysler 300, or 2014-
      2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee equipped with the monostable
      shifter, where the vehicle was purchased or leased in
      Utah, but excluding every person who has brought a claim
      against FCA US LLC alleging recovery for bodily injuries
      caused by those vehicles under any legal theory."

      The Plaintiff seeks certification of the Utah Class for a
      claim of breach of implied warranty of merchantability and
      violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

   2. Appointing him as the Class Representative for the Class.

   3. Appointing the following leadership structure pursuant to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g):

      a. E. Powell Miller and Steve W. Berman as Lead Counsel
         and Chairs of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee; and

      b. Joseph Meltzer, Gregory Coleman, Daniel Gustafson, and
         Robert Shelquist as members of the Plaintiffs' Steering
         Committee.

   4. Any other appropriate relief in furtherance of class
      certification.

FCA manufactured and sold or leased, in the State of Utah, at least
7,322 Class Vehicles with a monostable gear shifter that has a
design defect that renders the Class Vehicles unsuitable for the
ordinary use of providing safe transportation. The jury in the
certified issues trial concluded that the design defect exists in
these Class Vehicles under Utah law. Thus, certification of a Rule
23(b)(3) class for breach of implied warranty of merchantability
(pursuant to Utah Code section 70A-2-314) and violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) is appropriate.

After more than six years of litigation, multiple motions to
dismiss, a motion for class certification, a motion for summary
judgment, and a Rule 23(c)(4) issues trial, the Court is
undoubtedly well-versed in the facts of this case. Thus, Plaintiff
incorporates the facts as stated in Plaintiffs' original motion for
class certification, the Court's opinion on class certification,
and the Court's opinion on summary judgment and will only provide a
brief summary below.

FCA sold or leased more than 800,000 Class Vehicles nationwide with
the same monostable electronic gear shifter supplied by ZF
Friedrichshaffen (ZF). As FCA's own studies confirm, the monostable
shifter is defective because it inhibits reliable gear selection
and provides insufficient tactile or audible feedback to allow
drivers to readily and confidently shift to their intended gear.

FCA conducted numerous human machine interface (HMI) studies to
provide feedback and data on the usability of the monostable
shifters. As was made clear during the issues trial (and in the
Court's opinion on summary judgment), FCA had alternative shifters
that it could have included in the Class Vehicles, including,
specifically, the gated mechanical shifter or the electronic rotary
shifter.

In fact, in October 2010, FCA decided to use the rotary knob in the
Class Vehicles before abandoning it shortly thereafter due to a
minor increase in cost.

FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans,
trucks and commercial vans.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FyTZG7
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and Chair of Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee, are:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  dal@millerlawpc.com

The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
          SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  sean@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
          301 N. Lake Ave, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ
          MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  trgaden@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 S. Sixth St., Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.LP.
          100 Washington Ave., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Adam E. Edwards, Esq.
          William A. Ladnier, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN, PLLC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 533-0049
          E-mail: gcoleman@milberg.com
                  msilvey@milberg.com
                  aedwards@milberg.com
                  wladnier@milberg.com

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Barton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barton v. Mattel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00670 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores
and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a California Class:

      "All persons in the state of California, other than
      Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees,
      who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
      Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      James B. Eubank as Class Counsel.

On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes
of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws.

The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the
following claims:

    (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
        (CLRA);

    (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL);

    (3) breach of implied warranty; and

    (4) unjust enrichment.

After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of
class certification, this Court "focused on the certification
issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this
Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New
York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background
in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to
Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden.

The Barton Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
2903).

Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and
entertainment company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in
El Segundo, California.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3foeSJj
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and -

          Terrence Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Black Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Linda Black v. Mattel,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01083 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a California Class:

      "All persons in the state of California, other than
      Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees,
      who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
      Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      James B. Eubank as Class Counsel.

On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes
of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws.

The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the
following claims:

    (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
        (CLRA);

    (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL);

    (3) breach of implied warranty; and

    (4) unjust enrichment.

After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of
class certification, this Court "focused on the certification
issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this
Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New
York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background
in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to
Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden.

The Black Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
2903).

Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and
entertainment company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in
El Segundo, California.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ua4qE0
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and -

          Terrence Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Cuddy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cuddy v. Fisher Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00787 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a California Class:

      "All persons in the state of California, other than
      Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees,
      who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
      Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      James B. Eubank as Class Counsel.

On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes
of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws.

The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the
following claims:

    (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
        (CLRA);

    (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL);

    (3) breach of implied warranty; and

    (4) unjust enrichment.

After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of
class certification, this Court "focused on the certification
issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this
Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New
York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background
in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to
Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden.

The Cuddy Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
2903).

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ucrhi5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and -

          Terrence Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Drover-Mundy
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Drover-Mundy, et al v.
Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00512 (W.D.N.Y.),
, the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a California Class:

      "All persons in the state of California, other than
      Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees,
      who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
      Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      James B. Eubank as Class Counsel.

On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes
of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws.

The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the
following claims:

    (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
        (CLRA);

    (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL);

    (3) breach of implied warranty; and

    (4) unjust enrichment.

After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of
class certification, this Court "focused on the certification
issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this
Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New
York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background
in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to
Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden.

The Drover-Mundy Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
2903).

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fr1UdR
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and -

          Terrence Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Fieker Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fieker v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01075 (W.D.N.Y.), , the Plaintiffs
Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a California Class:

      "All persons in the state of California, other than
      Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees,
      who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
      Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      James B. Eubank as Class Counsel.

On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes
of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws.

The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the
following claims:

    (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
        (CLRA);

    (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL);

    (3) breach of implied warranty; and

    (4) unjust enrichment.

After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of
class certification, this Court "focused on the certification
issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this
Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New
York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background
in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to
Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden.

The Fieker Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
No. 2903).

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sOido6
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and -

          Terrence Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Kimmel Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimmel v. Fisher Price,
Inc. et al.,  Case No. 1:19-cv-00695 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a California Class:

      "All persons in the state of California, other than
      Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees,
      who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
      Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      James B. Eubank as Class Counsel.

On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes
of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws.

The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the
following claims:

    (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
        (CLRA);

    (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL);

    (3) breach of implied warranty; and

    (4) unjust enrichment.

After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of
class certification, this Court "focused on the certification
issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this
Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New
York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background
in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to
Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden.

The Kimmel Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
No. 2903).

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SW4UMZ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and -

          Terrence Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com


MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Mulvey Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mulvey v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00518 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a California Class:

      "All persons in the state of California, other than
      Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees,
      who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
      Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      James B. Eubank as Class Counsel.

On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes
of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws.

The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the
following claims:

    (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
        (CLRA)

    (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL);

    (3) breach of implied warranty; and

    (4) unjust enrichment.

After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of
class certification, this Court "focused on the certification
issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this
Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New
York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background
in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to
Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden.

The Mulvey Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
2903).

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UcqXzT
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and -

          Terrence Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Nabong Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NABONG v. Mattel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00668 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores
and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a California Class:

      "All persons in the state of California, other than
      Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees,
      who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
      Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      James B. Eubank as Class Counsel.

On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes
of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws.

The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the
following claims:

    (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
        (CLRA);

    (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL);

    (3) breach of implied warranty; and

    (4) unjust enrichment.

After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of
class certification, this Court "focused on the certification
issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this
Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New
York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background
in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to
Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden.

The Nabong Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
2903).

Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and
entertainment company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in
El Segundo, California.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SXmQGW
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and -

          Terrence Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Nadel Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nadel et al v.
Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00791 (W.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an
order:

   1. certifying a California Class:

      "All persons in the state of California, other than
      Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees,
      who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
      Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      James B. Eubank as Class Counsel.

On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes
of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws.

The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the
following claims:

    (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
        (CLRA);

    (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL);

    (3) breach of implied warranty; and

    (4) unjust enrichment.

After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of
class certification, this Court "focused on the certification
issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this
Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New
York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background
in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to
Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden.

The Nadel Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
No. 2903).

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DPgXHH
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and -

          Terrence Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Pasternacki
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pasternacki v. Fisher
Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00941 (W.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an
order:

   1. certifying a California Class:

      "All persons in the state of California, other than
      Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees,
      who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
      Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      James B. Eubank as Class Counsel.

On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes
of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws.

The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the
following claims:

    (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
        (CLRA);

    (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL);

    (3) breach of implied warranty; and

    (4) unjust enrichment.

After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of
class certification, this Court "focused on the certification
issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this
Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New
York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background
in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to
Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden.

The Pasternacki Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
No. 2903).

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WjXiH3
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and -

          Terrence Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Poppe Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Poppe v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00870 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a California Class:

      "All persons in the state of California, other than
      Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees,
      who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
      Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      James B. Eubank as Class Counsel.

On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes
of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws.

The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the
following claims:

    (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
        (CLRA);

    (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL);

    (3) breach of implied warranty; and

    (4) unjust enrichment.

After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of
class certification, this Court "focused on the certification
issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this
Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New
York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background
in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to
Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden.

The Poppe Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
No. 2903).

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ztL0C4
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and -

          Terrence Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Shaffer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaffer v. Mattel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00667 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores
and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a California Class:

      "All persons in the state of California, other than
      Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees,
      who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
      Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      James B. Eubank as Class Counsel.

On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes
of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws.

The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the
following claims:

    (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
        (CLRA);

    (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL);

    (3) breach of implied warranty; and

    (4) unjust enrichment.

After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of
class certification, this Court "focused on the certification
issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this
Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New
York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background
in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to
Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden.

The Schaffer Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
No. 2903).

Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and
entertainment company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in
El Segundo, California.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NnqBEq
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and -

          Terrence Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Willis Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Willis v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01107-GWC (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a California Class:

      "All persons in the state of California, other than
      Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees,
      who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
      Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      James B. Eubank as Class Counsel.

On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes
of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws.

The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the
following claims:

    (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
        (CLRA);

    (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL);

    (3) breach of implied warranty; and

    (4) unjust enrichment.

After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of
class certification, this Court "focused on the certification
issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this
Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New
York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background
in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to
Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden.

The Willis Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
No. 2903).

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NDrkSl
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and -

          Terrence Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MDL 2903: Flores, Megan Seek to Certify California Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper
Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case
No. 1:19-md-02903-GWC (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and
Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order:
   1. certifying a California Class;

      "All persons in the state of California, other than
      Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees,
      who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
      Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      James B. Eubank as Class Counsel.

On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes
of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws.

The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the
following claims:

    (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
        (CLRA)

    (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL);

    (3) breach of implied warranty; and

    (4) unjust enrichment.

After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of
class certification, this Court "focused on the certification
issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this
Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant
to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background
in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to
Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FDZxzb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and -

          Terrence Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com


MIDDLESEX WATER CO: Sued Over PFOA Contamination in Water Works
---------------------------------------------------------------
Middlesex Water Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2022, that in
November 2021, the company was served with two class action
lawsuits seeking restitution for medical, water replacement and
other claimed related costs related to perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) contamination.

The company's insurance provider has acknowledged coverage of
potential liability which may result from these lawsuits. In May
2022, the company impleaded 3M Company as a third-party defendant
in one of these class action lawsuits. The company has taken this
action in addition to a separate lawsuit the company initiated
against 3M seeking to hold 3M accountable for introduction of
perfluoroalkyl substances, which include PFOA, into the company's
water supply at its Park Avenue Wellfield facility.

Middlesex Water Company is the parent company and sole shareholder
of Tidewater Utilities, Inc., Pinelands Water Company and Pinelands
Wastewater company, Utility Service Affiliates, Inc. (USA), and
Utility Service Affiliates (Perth Amboy) Inc. (USA-PA).


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Faces Several Securities Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Mondelez International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that
Mondelez Global is facing several complaints filed by investors.

Several class action complaints were filed against Kraft Foods
Group and Mondelez Global in the District Court by investors in
wheat futures and options on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated.

The complaints make similar allegations as those made in the CFTC
action, and the plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, interest
and unjust enrichment; costs and fees; and injunctive, declaratory
and other unspecified relief.

In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as case number
15-cv-2937, Harry Ploss et al. v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and
Mondelez Global LLC.

On January 3, 2020, the District Court granted plaintiffs' request
to certify a class. It is not possible to predict the outcome of
these matters; however, based on the Company's Separation and
Distribution Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September
27, 2012, it expects to bear any monetary penalties or other
payments in connection with the class action. Although the CFTC
action and the class action complaints involve the same alleged
conduct, the resolution of the CFTC matter may not be dispositive
as to the outcome of the class action.

In November 2019, the European Commission informed the Company that
it initiated an investigation into its alleged infringement of
European Union competition law through certain practices
restricting cross-border trade within the European Economic Area.

On January 28, 2021, the European Commission announced it took the
next procedural step in its investigation and opened formal
proceedings.

The Company is cooperating with the investigation and are engaging
with the European Commission as its investigation proceeds. It is
not possible to predict how long the investigation will take or the
ultimate outcome of this matter.

Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding
and beverage company based in Chicago, Illinois which employs
approximately 83,000 individuals around the world.[CC]

MORGAN RUN: Discriminates Against Female Members, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter at classaction.org reports that a female member of
Morgan Run Club & Resort in San Diego, California has filed a
proposed class action claiming the private tennis club's owner,
ClubCorp, discriminates against women.

According to the 15-page case, ClubCorp, who owns private country
clubs throughout the U.S., has violated California law by treating
male members more favorably than female members when providing
services and upholding its policies. As the case tells it, ClubCorp
has allowed male members to "constantly" harass, intimidate and
verbally abuse women at the club, and has retaliated against female
members when they issue complaints.

The plaintiff claims she filed a formal complaint with ClubCorp
after a male member and agent of the club sent her abusive and
harassing text messages. After a grievance hearing, the club made
the "intentionally biased decision" to terminate the plaintiff's
membership and overlook its bylaws by refusing to take any adverse
action against the male member, the lawsuit relays.

Additionally, the complaint asserts that male club members were
offered greater privileges during men's night tennis events, such
as an extended happy hour, a 50-percent discount on freshly cooked
food, seating at the restaurant, a free drink, a "wide selection"
of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages by the glass or by the
bottle, staffing until the end of the event and the option to
reserve neighboring courts.

The case contends that at women's night tennis events, the happy
hour would end early, the restaurant would not be open, and the
women were not provided a free drink, discounts, restaurant seating
or beverages by the glass. Instead, the suit alleges, female club
members were only given pre-packaged food and had to eat "on the
cold, hard asphalt tennis court." Moreover, the club provided
staffing for women's night events only until the tennis house was
closed at 5:30 pm, the case says, and players were scattered across
courts that were not adjoining or close to one another.

Despite its "first-come, first-served" policy for reserving tennis
courts, ClubCorp, the case argues, would not allow female members
to participate if more male members had reserved spots, even if the
women had signed up first.

Per the complaint, ClubCorp has on several occasions dismissed or
sent women home "under false pretexts" during mixed double events.
In addition, the suit alleges that ClubCorp refused to offer
evening tennis clinics to female members even though it offers the
same service to male members.

"Plaintiff and others similarly situated have suffered from
unlawful discrimination, emotional distress, humiliation, shame,
and embarrassment and have been deprived from enjoying the services
due to the Defendants' discriminatory and unlawful business
practices," the filing argues.

The lawsuit looks to represent all female members of the private
clubs owned and operated by ClubCorp USA and ClubCorp Golf of
California. [GN]

NEPTUNE WELLNESS: To Settle Gong Suit Over SEC Filing Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report
for the current report dated October 21, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2022, that in
October 21, 2022, Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. announced that it
has agreed to settle and resolve a putative shareholder class
action lawsuit filed against Neptune and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, captioned "Gong v. Neptune Wellness
Solutions, Inc." (Case No. 2:21-cv-01386-ENV-ARL) pending in the
United States District court for the Eastern District of New York.


The litigation relates to allegations that, among other things, the
company had made misrepresentations of material information.

Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. is into pharmaceutical preparations
based in Canada.


NORMA MORRIS: Court OK's Nationwide as Named Plaintiff in Bell Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH D. BELL, Plaintiff v. NORMA MORRIS, Defendant,
Case No. 6:21-mc-23-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C.
Irick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide Judgment Recovery,
Inc.'s Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff filed on Oct. 4, 2022.

In the Motion, Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing,
that it is an assignee of Matthew Orso; Orso having succeeded
Kenneth D. Bell in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for
Rex Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as
the named Plaintiff in this matter.

Mr. Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against
the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and Judge Irick
agrees, that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete
transfer of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the
Defendant, Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the
requested substitution is appropriate. Nationwide contends that the
requested substitution, while not mandatory, will assist in
expediting and simplifying the action for the Court and the parties
as judgment enforcement progresses.

Upon consideration, Judge Irick grants the request. He concludes
that a court in this district recently found that the miscellaneous
matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a
continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment.
Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by
Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the
original party). A review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted
leaves no doubt that Nationwide is the proper party in interest,
and therefore Nationwide should be substituted as Plaintiff in this
action.

The Clerk is directed to amend the case caption to substitute
Nationwide as the named Plaintiff in the matter.

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


OAK HARBOR: Fails to Pay Pickup & Delivery Drivers' OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN TITUS, an individual, v. OAK HARBOR FREIGHT LINES, INC.
(OHFL); and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01929-KJM-JDP
(E.D. Cal., Oct. 26, 2022) is a class action lawsuit alleging that
the Defendant fails to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code.

Mr. Titus was hired by OHFL on October 5, 2020 and was initially
hired as a non-exempt employee and assigned the position of pickup
& delivery driver. Accordingly, pursuant to its uniform policy,
practice and procedure, OHFL failed to include commissions,
non-discretionary bonuses and other items of compensation when
determining employees' "regular rate of pay" for purposes of
overtime.

These unfair business practices included failing to pay minimum
wage, failing to pay all overtime and sick paid owed and at the
correct rate, failing to provide compliant meal and rest periods or
to pay premiums for the same at the correct rates, failing to pay
drivers for their time spent on Non-Driving Tasks on trips that
could not be completed in one day, failing to pay drivers minimum
wage for attending to their trucks during meal breaks as required
by California law, and failure timely pay employees at the end of
their employment, the suit claims.

OHFL is a leading west regional LTL carrier serving points
throughout the States of Arizona, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Wassermann, Esq.
          Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          Website: www.mayallaw.com
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477-3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
          E-mail: rwassermann@mayallaw.com
          vjkozina@mayallaw.com

                - and -

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Loses Bid to Junk Suit Related to Tax Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the Circuit Court
of St. Louis Count denied the company's motion to dismiss a
putative class action lawsuit alleging over-collection of taxes on
products sold in Missouri on March 16, 2022.

On March 1, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State
of Missouri, alleging similar allegations to the April 23, 2020
putative class action lawsuit that was dismissed, that its
over-collected taxes on products sold into the state of Missouri.

The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied
on October 13, 2021.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied on March
16, 2022.

Overstock describes itself as a "customer-focused online retailer"
that "provide[s] high-quality merchandise, great value, and
exceptional customer service." To provide its services, Overstock
employs numerous hourly call-center employees -- Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members -- who assist Overstock's customers and
clients throughout the United States (and the world).[BN]




PLANNED COMPANIES: Gonzalez Hits Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
ANA GONZALEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated; Plaintiff v. PLANNED COMPANIES,
an unknown business entity; PLANNED LIFESTYLE SERVICES, LLC, an
unknown business entity; PLANNED BUILDING SERVICES, INC, a New
Jersey corporation; PLANNED BUILDING SERVICES, LLC, an unknown
business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. CGC-22-602525 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 20,
2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions
Code.

The Plaintiff filed this complaint over the Defendants' failure to
pay wages; failure to pay for all hours worked and missed (short,
late, interrupted, and/or missed altogether) meal periods and rest
breaks; failure to pay the legally required overtime compensation;
failure to timely pay all wages; failure to comply with wage
reporting; failure to provide complete and accurate payroll
records; failed to reimburse necessary business-related expenses
and costs; and engagement in unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee
from approximately October 2020 to approximately March 2022.

Planned Companies provides janitorial, maintenance, concierge,
front desk, and security services to a wide array of clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

POLISHED.COM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Polished.com Inc. f/k/a Goedeker Inc.
("Polished," "Goedeker," or the "Company") securities: (i) pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the Company's 2020 initial public offering (the
"IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (ii) between July 27, 2020 and August
25, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York and alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendant Polished purports to sell furniture, fitness equipment,
plumbing fixtures, televisions, outdoor appliances, and patio
furniture, as well as commercial appliances for builder and
business clients as a content-driven and technology-enabled
shopping destination for appliances, furniture and home goods.

On July 20, 2022, the Company changed its name from "1847 Goedeker
Inc." to "Polished.com Inc." In connection with the name change,
the Company's common stock ceased trading under the ticker symbol
"GOED" and began trading under the ticker symbol "POL."

On August 3, 2020, the Company filed with the SEC the final
prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which forms part of the IPO
Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 1,111,200
shares at $9.00 per share.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements in the Registration Statement and throughout
the Class Period. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
failed to disclose, inter alia, that: (1) the Company would restate
certain financials; (2) the Company's internal controls were
inadequate; (3) the Company downplayed and obfuscated its internal
controls issues; and (4) as a result, the Company would have an
independent investigation.

On March 29, 2021, after market hours, the Company filed with the
SEC a report on Form 8-K ("Restatement 8-K"), which announced,
among other things, that the Company's financial statements for the
year ended December 31, 2019, should no longer be relied upon.

On August 15, 2022, after market hours, Polished notified investors
that it would not timely file its "quarterly report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2022 ('Second Quarter 10-Q') within
the prescribed time period" because the Company required additional
time to complete a newly announced investigation.

On August 25, 2022, after market hours, the Company's current
report on Form 8-K was accepted by the SEC. This report announced
that the Company was no longer in compliance with NYSE American
rules due to the Company failing to timely file its quarterly
report, and that the Company was automatically given an extension
until February 23, 2023 to regain compliance.

Also on August 25, 2022, after market hours, the Company issued a
press release entitled "Polished.com Provides Corporate Updates;
Engages Leading Strategic Consulting Firm and Receives New York
Stock Exchange Notice Regarding Late Form 10-Q Filing", which
announced the NYSE notice and also announced that the Company had
engaged "a leading strategic consulting firm with retail and
ecommerce operations expertise to augment its existing management,
identify opportunities to accelerate long-term profitable growth
and, separately, to potentially expedite the Audit Committee of the
Board of Directors' ongoing investigation."

On October 18, 2022, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Polished.com Announces Management Transition" which announced that
Defendants Albert Fouerti, Maria Johnson, and Elie Fouerti had
resigned from their roles at the Company effective October 14,
2022.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 30, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Polished securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
Polished.com Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter
Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]

PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Spam Calls Invade Privacy, Sutherland Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raleigh Sutherland v. Publishers Clearing House, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00270-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla, Oct. 26, 2022) is a class action
alleging that the Defendant invades Mr. Sutherland, and class
members' homes, phones, and privacy by initiating spam calls.

Accordingly, PCH has knowingly and willfully called Mr. Sutherland
multiple times, including at least four times from number
877-634-1170, for the purpose of soliciting Raleigh to purchase
magazine and/or newspaper subscriptions.

Mr. Sutherland answered some of these calls and expressed his
desire to not be contacted and asked to be placed on PCH’s
internal Do Not Call List, he says.

Mr. Sutherland registered 585-750-1887 on the National Do Not Call
Registry (DNCR) to stop telephone solicitations on June 6, 2006,
the suit says.

Mr. Sutherland never provided 585-750-1887 to PCH, never had a
relationship with PCH, and never gave permission for PCH to send
any type of communication, the suit added.

PCH allegedly initiated the calls using an automated system based
on the following facts:

      -- the calls were generic and impersonal, suggesting they
were
      sent to many people;

      -- the calls were not in response to anything Raleigh did;

      -- the calls continued after Raleigh asked for them to stop;
and

      -- after the calls were answered, there was a beep and then
a
      pause before the caller started talking.

The unwanted spam invades their substantive right to privacy,
namely the right to be free from unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff
claims. The spam allegedly causes Raleigh and class members to
avoid looking at their phones when it may be important or
interrupting other activities to respond to unwanted calls. The
spam reduces their phones' storage and battery life. In short, the
spam invades their privacy, diminishes the value of their phones
and their enjoyment of life, and causes a nuisance, an annoyance,
and an intrusion into their seclusion, the Plaintiff contends.

Publisher is a New York corporation with its principal place of
business in Jericho, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Kauffman, Esq.
          LAWHQ, P.C.
          299 S. Main St. #1300
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (385) 285-1090
          E-mail: john.kauffman@lawhq.com

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Darnis Suit w/ Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2022, that the
class action complaint captioned "Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon
Technologies Corporation, et al." which asserted claims under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) has been
dismissed by the court with prejudice.
  
Several former employees of United Technologies Corporation (UTC)
or its subsidiaries filed the putative class action complaint in
the United States District court for the District of Connecticut
against the company, Otis, Carrier, the former members of the UTC
Board of Directors, and the members of the Carrier and Otis Boards
of Directors.

The complaint challenged the method by which UTC equity awards were
converted to company, Otis, and Carrier equity awards following the
separation of UTC into three independent, publicly-traded companies
on April 3, 2020. The complaint also claimed that the defendants
are liable for breach of certain equity compensation plans and also
asserted claims under certain provisions of ERISA.

On September 13, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which
supersedes the initial complaint and continues to assert claims for
breach of the equity compensation plans against the company, Otis
and Carrier, but no longer asserts ERISA claims. Further, no claim
is made in the amended complaint against any current or former
director of any of the three companies. Plaintiffs seek money
damages, attorneys' fees and other relief. On September 30, 2022,
in response to motions to dismiss filed by the company, Otis and
Carrier, the court dismissed the class action in its entirety with
prejudice.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation, based in Virginia, is a global
premier systems provider of technology products and services to the
aerospace and defense industries.


SAFEMOON LLC: Crypto Investor Dropped Fraud Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that a purchaser of the SafeMoon
crypto-token has tentatively dropped his class action lawsuit
alleging its creators defrauded investors by artificially inflating
the price of the tokens through false statements, according to a
filing.

Plaintiff Christopher Rackauckas sued SafeMoon LLC in Utah federal
court in May, accusing the company of unlawfully selling the tokens
by failing to register them as securities with the US Securities
and Exchange Commission, costing investors millions of dollars.
That lawsuit was the third with similar allegations that was
brought against SafeMoon and its corporate leaders. [GN]

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Mason Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled Robert A. Mason v. Samsung Electronics America,
Inc. et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-01244, was transferred from U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 20, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-06186 to the proceeding.

The complaint is a class action against Samsung on behalf of
individuals, in California, who purchased a defective Samsung
electric or gas range with front-mounted burner control knobs that
purportedly must be depressed and turned in ordered to activate the
heating element of the range.

The Plaintiff and Class members allegedly suffered economic injury
as a result of purchasing the Samsung Ranges that have burners that
repeatedly and unexpectedly turn on. They assert that the
Defendants violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the
Song-Beverly Warranty Act, and the California Business and
Professions Code due to the alleged conduct.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. manufactures electronic products.
The Company offers televisions, digital cameras, cell phones,
storage devices, home appliances, security systems, smartwatches,
and computer products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          401 West C St., Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (714) 651-8845
          E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com

               - and -

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          John J. Nelson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          280 S. Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: astraus@milberg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Telephone: (213) 532-2000
          Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
          E-mail: amortimer@huntonAK.com

SEALED AIR: Settlement Deal in UA Local 13 Suit for Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the parties
involved in the UA Local 13 securities class suit inked a
settlement deal that is subject for preliminary court approval.

On November 1, 2019, purported Company stockholder UA Local 13 &
Employers Group Insurance Fund filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers.

On June 4, 2020, the complaint was amended to remove all individual
defendants other than the Company's former CFO and to add a
plaintiff, and on July 13, 2020, the complaint was further amended
to identify a total of four plaintiffs.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's hiring
of Ernst & Young LLP as its independent auditors and concerning the
Company's corporate policies and procedures.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between November 17, 2014 and June 20, 2019.
The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, including interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 4, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, and on June 1, 2021, the court issued a ruling that
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.

The Company filed its answer to the complaint on July 15, 2021.

On September 9, 2022, the parties signed a settlement agreement
including a proposed settlement amount of $12.5 million and
submitted it to the court for preliminary approval.

Sealed Air Corporation provides food safety and security, and
product protection solutions worldwide. It was founded in 1960 and
is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING: Biddle Sues Over Unpaid Pages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALARIC BIDDLE, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
an Ohio Corporation, CHERYLYNN SHUMAN, an individual, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV33983 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 20, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code due to their
alleged unlawful labor practices.

The complaint alleges Defendants' failure to provide employment
records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to
provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to pay
split shift wages, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure
to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to
reimburse necessary, business-related expenses, and failure to
provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.

Representative Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job
title of shipping technician on February 2017. Representative
Plaintiff is currently employed by the Defendants.

The Sherwin-Williams Manufacturing Company is an Ohio–based
company in the paint and coating manufacturing industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
          Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 696-2306
          Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
          E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                  cathy@hbklawyers.com
                  kevin@hbklawyers.com

SISENSE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
BRYSEN BROWN, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SISENSE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
531125/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Oct. 26, 2022) is an action
against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendant as sales
representative.

Sisense, Inc. provides organizations with the ability to infuse
analytics everywhere, embedded in both customer and employee
applications and workflows. The Company offers a the highly
customizable, AI-driven analytics cloud platform, that infuses
intelligence at the right place and the right time, every time.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
          Amy Maurer, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          Email: mstewart@outtengolden.com
                 amaurer@outtengolden.com

SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Jan. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
SolarEdge Technologies Inc. The class action is on behalf of
shareholders who purchased SolarEdge securities between August 6,
2020 to October 19, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until
January 3, 2023, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in
this action.

What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and
are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone
at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.

To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
into a browser:

https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/solaredge-technologies-inc

There is no cost or obligation to you.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) the designs of the power optimizers, inverters,
and components thereof used to develop SolarEdge's products
potentially originated with and were misappropriated from Ampt;
(ii) Ampt made claims against the Company for misappropriating
Ampt's patented technology, (iii) evidentiary support existed for
the allegations that SolarEdge misappropriated certain patents
relating to the design and development of the Company's power
optimizers and inverters; (iv) as a result, SolarEdge faced a
threat of regulatory and/or court action, which could prohibit the
import, marketing, and sale of its power optimizers and inverters,
including solar energy systems that contain such products; which in
turn (v) seriously threatened SolarEdge's ability to monetize on
their solar energy systems that contain the power optimizers and
inverters in the United States and generate revenue; and (vi)
certain revenues generated from the sale of power optimizers and
inverters were potentially based on SolarEdge's unlawful
activities, including the misappropriation of patented designs by
Ampt.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the SolarEdge class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the SolarEdge class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff.

For more information regarding the lead plaintiff process please
refer to https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines.

About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]

SONY CORP: Hit With Class Suit Over G Master Camera Lens Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi at classaction.org reports that Sony's use of a
sticker to affix the serial number to its G Master SEL1635GM F2.8
camera lens is the subject of a proposed class action filed almost
two years after the company voluntarily recalled the
top-of-the-line product.

The 17-page lawsuit was brought by a Pomona, California resident
who says he was unable to have his G Master lens repaired as part
of the defect-driven recall because the sticker on which the
product's serial number was affixed had fallen off. The man
contends that he would not have purchased the lens, which
reportedly retails for $2,199.99, or would have paid less for it,
had he known defendant Sony Electronics falsely and misleadingly
represented the product.

"Defendant misrepresented the Product's value because the high
probability the serial number sticker would become detached meant
Plaintiff and consumers were deprived of the value of their
purchase, through, among other things, the inability to obtain
post-sale servicing in the event of a recall due to defects of
design or manufacture," the lawsuit summarizes.

Per the suit, Sony's G Master (Gold Master) lenses are touted as
top-of-the-line products made to satisfy professional imaging,
speed, efficiency and reliability requirements. The G Master
lenses, which reportedly range in price from $1,500 to $2,800, are
known to be more resistant to dust and water and, due to their
advanced actuator technology, can supposedly operate faster and
focus with greater precision when the camera is in manual or auto
mode, the filing says.

In November 2019, Sony voluntarily recalled its G Master SEL1635GM
FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM E-mount lenses by way of a Lens Check and Repair
Program. The reason for the recall, the case relays, was because
the lens "may cause the camera to not operate correctly" when it is
attached, including by preventing the camera's rear screen from
displaying correctly.

For the recall, Sony advised consumers that only lenses with serial
numbers between 1800502 and 1823192 were believed to be affected,
according to the case. Per the suit, Sony instructed consumers to
enter their lens's serial number on its website to see if it was
covered by the recall. If a lens was affected, Sony agreed to
provide repairs free of charge until March 31, 2023, the lawsuit
says.

The plaintiff, however, takes issue with Sony's decision to affix
the serial number to a lens with a small sticker plate attached to
the base of the lens, apparently "an outlier among leading lens
manufacturers." A picture included in the complaint purports to
show that the space where the serial number was supposed to be on
the plaintiff's lens is empty, which posed a problem when the man
attempted to participate in the recall, the suit relays:

The case stresses that camera lenses are "handled intensively by
their users," causing dirt, moisture, and oils to contact the part
of the lens where the serial number sticker is located. The serial
number on a Sony lens can detach "within six months of intensive
usage," the filing claims.

"Over time, the serial number stickers on Sony lenses have a high
tendency to fall off," the complaint states. "Should that happen,
users of Sony lenses will not be able to receive product support,
servicing, warranty coverage, nor participate in any recalls,
because Sony requires the user to provide the lens' serial number."


The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in the United States who
bought a Sony G Master SEL1635GM F2.8 lens within the applicable
statute of limitations period. [GN]

STEPHANIE MORRIS: Fails to Pay Office Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER WINESBURG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. STEPHANIE MORRIS NISSAN, LLC, STEPHANIE MORRIS, and
ROBBIE HOWARD, Case No. 22-4157 (W.D. Mo., Oct. 6, 2022) seeks to
recover unpaid compensation due for overtime work in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri wage laws.

Ms. Winesburg was employed as an Office Manager from June 7, 2022
to September 1, 2022.

During her employment, the Defendants classified the Plaintiff
salary-exempt, and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated at a rate not less than one and one half times
the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, says the suit.

Stephanie Morris is a car dealership with its principal place of
business in Dallas Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hodgson MO, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
          3609 SW Pryor Road
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Telephone: (816) 600-0117
          Facsimile: (816) 600-0137
          E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

                - and –

          Kirk Rahm MO, Esq.
          RAHM, RAHM & McVAY, P.C.
          511 Foster Lane
          Warrensburg, MO 64093
          Telephone: (660) 747-5152
          Facsimile: (660) 747-1242
          E-mail: rahmlaw@gmail.com

TRANS UNION: Dillon Suit Alleges Illegal Collection of Biometrics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAHLEIA DILLON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-01662-TWR-BGS (S.D. Cal., Oct. 26, 2022) alleges violation
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, under the privacy section of its
website, the Defendant states; "When you interact with us we may
collect information to help identify and contact you." The
Defendant admits it collects "Audio recordings as part of contact
with you, for customer support or otherwise" under the "Biometric"
category - meaning it measures and analyzes audio recordings to
help identify callers. By using voice to help identify callers, the
Defendant is determining the truth or falsity of the callers'
statements, says the suit.

The Defendant did not obtain prior express written consent from the
Plaintiff or Class members to examine their voices or record their
unique voice prints to determine the truth or falsity of their
statements in alleged violation of CIPA.

TRANS UNION LLC operates as global information and insights
company. The Company offers various credit monitoring, risk
management, marketing, and other related solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               -and-

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

TRINITY TEEN: Sherman Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 10th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLIE SHERMAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion for class certification in the lawsuit
entitled Carlie Sherman, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Trinity Teen Solutions,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-00215-SWS, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Wyoming.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, all human trafficking victims of the "troubled teen
industry," brought this suit on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons against the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendant owners and their
recruitment agents defrauded the Plaintiffs, other putative class
members, and their parents throughout the recruitment process,
inducing them into paying substantial fees for residential
treatment, under promises of receiving full-time cutting-edge
therapies and while maintaining proper education towards high
school graduation. The Defendant owners actually forced the
Plaintiffs and putative class members to work without pay for
periods of time lasting between months and years. The Defendant
owners and/or their agents caused the Plaintiffs and the putative
class members to believe that if they did not work for the
Defendants, they would suffer physical or emotional abuse and
prolonged confinement.

On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge Scott W. Skavdahl on Oct. 5, 2022. The Court ruled that the
commonality, typicality, and predominance requirements of Rules
23(a)(2), 23(a)(3), and 23(b)(3) are not met in this case.
Consequently, class certification is not warranted.

The appellate case is captioned Sherman, et al. v. Trinity Teen
Solutions, et al., Case No. 22-705, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on October 19, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners CARLIE SHERMAN, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Bryce W. Ashby, Esq.
            Craig A. Edgington, Esq.
            Brice Moffatt Timmons, Esq.
            DONATI LAW FIRM
            1545 Union Avenue
            Memphis, TN 38104
            Telephone: (901) 278-1004

                   - and -

            Nathan A. Nicholas, Esq.
            Michael B. Rosenthal, Esq.
            HATHAWAY & KUNZ
            2515 Warren Avenue, Suite 500
            P.O. Box 1208
            Cheyenne, WY 82003
            Telephone: (307) 634-7723

                   - and -

            William E. Routt, III, Esq.
            Frank L. Watson, III, Esq.
            WATSON BURNS, PLLC
            253 Adams Avenue
            Memphis, TN 38103
            Telephone: (901) 529-7996

Defendants-Respondents TRINITY TEEN SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., are
represented by:

            Lillian Alves, Esq.
            Thomas B. Quinn, Esq.
            Lindsey M. Romano, Esq.
            GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
            555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3400
            Denver, CO 80202
            Telephone: (303) 534-5160

TWITTER INC: Sued Over CEO Elon Musk's Plan to Eliminate Jobs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that Twitter Inc. began notifying employees
affected by a far-reaching round of job cuts, and some learned
they'll be paid for two months. As this was happening, the new
owner, Elon Musk, said the business experienced a "massive drop" in
revenue as many advertisers withdrew.

After the billionaire took over and promised sweeping changes,
workers around the world were checking two email addresses to find
out if they still have a job, according to an internal memo sent to
employees and seen by Bloomberg. An email to their work account
means they've been retained. A letter in their personal inbox means
they've been fired.

Twitter temporarily closed offices and suspended badge access "to
help ensure the safety of each employee as well as Twitter systems
and customer data," the memo said.

Musk plans to eliminate half of Twitter's workforce to slash costs
at the social media platform he acquired for $44 billion last
month, people with knowledge of the matter have said. The company
must also find ways to cope with interest costs on a massive debt
pile.

The speed of the changes is having repercussions. Twitter has
already been sued for not giving proper notice of the plan to
eliminate about 3,700 jobs.

Some advertisers are also wary of Musk's plans to reexamine
Twitter's content moderation policy. Volkswagen AG, Europe's
largest carmaker, joined Pfizer Inc. and General Mills Inc. in
temporarily pausing advertising on the platform.


Civil Rights Groups Plan to Escalate Pressure on Advertisers (2:12
p.m.)

A coalition called #StopToxicTwitter — made up of more than 60
civil rights groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and
Accountable Tech — said it plans to escalate calls to Twitter
advertisers that they stop buying ad space on the platform in the
wake of Musk's sweeping layoffs.

"We are witnessing the real-time destruction of one of the world's
most powerful communication systems," said Jessica J. Gonzalez,
co-CEO of Free Press, one of the advocacy groups in the coalition.
"Elon Musk is an erratic billionaire who's dangerously unqualified
to run Twitter." Gonzales said the groups were stepping up their
campaign in response to Musk's failure to uphold his commitment to
take the measures that would prevent Twitter from becoming a
superspreader of racism and disenfranchisement.

Color Of Change President Rashad Robinson criticized Musk for
reportedly dismantling employee resource groups like Twitter Women
and Blackbirds, a group for Black employees at the social media
company. The groups were "critical," Robinson said, "not just for
the employees, but for the communities they are connected to."

Musk Addresses a Crowd in New York City (1:04 p.m.)

Musk predicted Twitter could eventually become the world's most
valuable company, he said at the Baron Investment Conference in New
York City. He made essentially the same prediction about Tesla Inc.
on its earnings call about two weeks ago.

Pregnant Workers Seek Answers About Health Benefits (12:33 p.m.
NY)

Many workers wrote on company Slack channels and in public Twitter
posts to say goodbye. They used blue heart and salute emoji to
thank their colleagues. But they lacked official information about
their next steps. At least two pregnant staffers who were laid off
had no information about their medical benefits going forward,
according to people familiar with the matter. Even the employees
who survived the cuts were reeling from the way the process
occurred.

Read the Memo Sent to Employees (12:11 p.m. NY)

Team,

In an effort to place Twitter on a healthy path, we will go through
the difficult process of reducing our global workforce. We
recognize that this will impact a number of individuals who have
made valuable contributions to Twitter, but this action is
unfortunately necessary to ensure the company's success moving
forward.

Twitter Has 'Massive Drop in Revenue' Musk Says (10:33 a.m. NY)

"Twitter has had a massive drop in revenue, due to activist groups
pressuring advertisers, even though nothing has changed with
content moderation and we did everything we could to appease the
activists," Musk said in a tweet. "Extremely messed up! They're
trying to destroy free speech in America."

Some Employees Will Get Severance Pay for Two Months, Lawyer Says
(10:26 a.m.)

"It looks like employees are getting their notices and at least
some will be paid until January 4," said Shannon Liss-Riordan, the
attorney who filed a class-action lawsuit in California. "I am
pleased that Elon Musk learned something from the lawsuit we
brought against him at Tesla and is making an effort to comply with
the WARN Act. We filed this case preemptively to make sure a repeat
of that violation did not happen."

Twitter Employees Join Unions Ahead of Job Cuts (12 p.m. London)

Twitter employees in the UK have been joining trade unions in an
effort to better protect their employment rights during mass job
cuts announced by the social media platform's new owner Elon Musk.

"Twitter is treating its people appallingly," said Mike Clancy,
General Secretary of Prospect, a UK-based trade union that said it
has seen an influx of sign-ups from Twitter employees. Clancy
called on the UK government to ensure that Twitter doesn't become a
"digital P&O," referring to the ferry company that cut 800 jobs in
March.

"We are supporting our members at Twitter and will be working with
them to defend them and their livelihoods," he added.

Britain's United Tech and Allied Workers labor group also condemned
the way employees were treated and encouraged Twitter workers to
join.

The UK's Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service says
businesses must generally consult on redundancies and inform the
government's Redundancy Payments Service. An ACAS spokesman didn't
immediately respond to a request for comment on the situation.

Ex-CEO Costolo Creates Twitter Alumni Network (11:30 a.m. London)

Former Twitter Chief Executive Officer Dick Costolo, who left the
company in 2015, said his latest company has put together a
resource for former Twitter employees who want to connect and
"figure out what's next."

Costolo is founder of 01 Advisors, a venture capital and advisory
firm for tech startups in San Francisco.

Employees Notified in Dublin (11 a.m. London)

Twitter's Dublin office, which employs about 500 people, have begun
notifying some employees via email, according to Irish news site
RTE.

Some employees in the UK also began to share on Twitter that they'd
been locked out of their work systems.

A representative for Twitter didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment.

Volkswagen Tells Brands to Pause Spending (8:30 a.m. London)

Volkswagen, Europe's biggest carmaker, recommended that all of its
brands pause their paid activities on Twitter until further notice,
according to an emailed statement.

Several advertisers have tapped the brakes on placing ads on the
platform until they get a clearer idea of Musk's plans. Musk has
said he wants to remove some content moderation, giving rise to
concerns that hate speech, misinformation and other potentially
harmful material will flourish even more freely. General Mills said
it's temporarily pausing advertising on Twitter, joining General
Motors Co. in rethinking their presence on the platform.

Twitter Sued for Mass Layoffs (10:43 p.m. SF)

Twitter was sued over Musk's plan to eliminate jobs at the
social-media platform, which workers say the company is doing
without enough notice in violation of federal and California law. A
class-action lawsuit was filed in San Francisco federal court.

Employees Start Losing Email Access (9:13 p.m. SF)

The company started cutting employee access to email and Slack.
Some employees who were shut out of their work tools suspected
their jobs were already cut, though they had received no official
confirmation yet.

Job Cuts Begin

All told, Musk wants to cut about 3,700 jobs at San Francisco-based
Twitter, people with knowledge of the matter said. The entrepreneur
had begun dropping hints about his staffing priorities before the
deal closed, saying he wants to focus on the core product.
"Software engineering, server operations & design will rule the
roost," he tweeted in early October.

Security staff at Twitter's San Francisco headquarters carried out
preparations for layoffs, while an internal directory used to look
up colleagues was taken off line, people with knowledge of the
matter said. Employees have been girding for firings for weeks. In
recent days, they raced to connect via LinkedIn and other
non-Twitter avenues, offering each other advice on how to weather
losing one's job, the people said. Ex-Twitter engineers are also
using social media to respond to former "Tweeps" looking to land
jobs elsewhere.

Musk has also been huddling with advisers to come up with new ways
to make money from the blogging platform, including charging for
verifications, which can help delineate real users from fake
accounts. He's also considering reviving a long-since-discontinued
short-video tool called Vine, a way to vie with popular
video-sharing apps like TikTok. Another product under
consideration, the New York Times reported, is paid direct
messages, which would let the rank and file send private messages
to high-profile users.[GN]

U.S. BANCORP: Faces Buhrke Family Suit Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE BUHRKE FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. BANCORP; ANDREW
CECERE; TERRY DOLAN; and JODI RICHARD, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-09174 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired U.S. Bancorp
securities between August 1, 2019 and July 28, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) U.S. Bank
created sales pressure on its employees that led them to open
credit cards, lines of credit, and deposit accounts without
consumers' knowledge and consent; (b) since at least 2015, U.S.
Bank and by extension, U.S. Bancorp, was aware of such unauthorized
conduct and that it was violating relevant regulations and laws
aimed at protecting its consumers; (c) U.S. Bancorp failed to
properly monitor its employees from engaging in such unlawful
conduct, detect and stop the misconduct, and identify and remediate
harmed consumers; (d) all the foregoing subjected the Company to a
foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny or
investigation; (e) U.S. Bancorp's revenues were in part the product
of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (f) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 28, 2022, the truth about U.S. Bancorp's practices was
disclosed when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB")
issued a Consent Order and fined U.S. Bank $37.5 million for
illegally exploiting consumers' personal data to open sham accounts
for unsuspecting customers. On this news, the price of U.S. Bancorp
stock declined 4% to close at $46.12 on July 28, 2022.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.

U.S. BANCORP is a diversified financial services company that
provides lending and depository services, cash management, foreign
exchange and trust and investment management services. The Company
also provides credit card services, mortgage banking, insurance,
brokerage, and leasing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrea Farah, Esq.
          Alesandra Greco, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Email: afarah@lowey.com
                 agreco@lowey.com

               -and-

          Brian Schall, Esq.
          THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 303-1964
          Facsimile: (213) 519-5876
          Email: brian@schallfirm.com

UNITED SERVICES: Joint Stipulation to Extend Case Schedule OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD J. DAVIDSON, a
married man, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a Texas
Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00527-JWH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge John W. Holcomb granted the joint stipulation to extend case
schedule as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff shall file any class       May 12, 2023
      certification motion no later than:

   2. The Defendant shall file its             July 14, 2023
      response to Plaintiff's class
      certification motion:

   3. The Plaintiff shall file any             Aug. 11, 2023
      reply in support of his Motion
      for Class Certification by:

   4. Subject to the Court's schedule          Aug. 25, 2023
      and availability, the hearing
      on Plaintiff's motion for
      class certification is set for:

   5. All discovery, including                 Aug. 18, 2023
      discovery motions shall be filed
      and have been heard by:

   6. The Deadline for Dispositive Motion      Oct. 16, 2023
      Hearing is:

USAA provides financial services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3foYc4s at no extra charge.[CC]

US FOODS: Attebery Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------
The case styled STEVEN THOMAS ATTEBERY on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US FOODS, INC. d/b/a/ US
FOODSERVICE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CECG02944, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Fresno to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Oct. 20,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:22-at-00826 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts causes of action on a class-wide basis for:
(1) failure to pay lawful wages; (2) failure to provide lawful meal
periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (3) failure to provide
lawful rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (4) failure to
reimburse employee expenses; (5) failure to timely pay wages during
employment; (6) failure to timely pay wages at termination; (7)
failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; and (8)
violations of the Unfair Competition Law.

US Foods, Inc. is an American foodservice distributor.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph C. Liburt, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1000 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 614-7400
          Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
          E-mail: jliburt@orrick.com

               - and -

          Annie H. Chen, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071     
          Telephone: (213) 629-2020
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2499
          E-mail: annie.chen@orrick.com

US STEEL: Settlement in Shareholder Suit for Court Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2022, that the
plaintiffs and defendants agreed to settle the Shareholder Class
Action in the amount of $40 million that. Class action settlement
approval is currently pending.

On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint
was filed in the United States District court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania consolidating previously-filed actions.
Separately, five related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed
in state and federal courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the
Delaware court of Chancery.

The underlying consolidated class action lawsuit alleges that U. S.
Steel, certain current and former officers, an upper-level manager
of the company and the financial underwriters who participated in
the August 2016 secondary public offering of the company's common
stock violated federal securities laws in making false statements
and/or failing to discover and disclose material information
regarding the financial condition of the company.

The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of
plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27,
2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class
purchasing the company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock
dropped. The derivative lawsuits generally make the same
allegations against the same officers and also allege that certain
current and former members of the Board of Directors failed to
exercise appropriate control and oversight over the company and
were unjustly compensated.

The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were allegedly
sustained. The Class Action Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims. On September 29, 2018 the court ruled on those motions
granting them in part and denying them in part. On March 18, 2019,
the plaintiffs withdrew the claims against the Class Action
Defendants related to the 2016 secondary offering. As a result, the
underwriters are no longer parties to the case.

On December 31, 2019, the court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the proceeding as a class action. The company's appeal of
that decision was denied. Discovery followed and concluded. On May
20, 2022, the Plaintiffs and Class Action Defendants agreed to
settle the Shareholder Class Action in the amount of $40 million to
be fully funded by the company's insurers. Court approval of the
class action settlement is currently pending.

United States Steel Corporation is into steel works based in
Pennsylvania.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Discovery Ongoing in Cantinieri Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that discovery is
ongoing for the putative class action captioned Cantinieri v.
Verisk Analytics Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-6911 that
alleges that the Company failed to protect the personally
identifiable of the plaintiff and the proposed classes members from
database breach.

On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Jillian Cantinieri brought a
putative class action against Verisk Analytics, Insurance Services
Office and ISO Claims Services, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, titled Cantinieri v.
Verisk Analytics Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-6911.

The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to safeguard the
personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and the
members of the proposed classes from a purported breach of its
databases by unauthorized entities. Plaintiff and class members
allege actual and imminent injuries, including theft of their PII,
fraudulent activity on their financial accounts, lowered credit
scores, and costs associated with detection and prevention of
identity theft and fraud. They seek to recover compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages, disgorgement of earnings and
profits, and attorney's fees and costs.

The Company filed its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims on April
22, 2022.

As of June 15, 2022, the motion to dismiss was fully briefed but
has neither been heard nor decided.

Discovery is ongoing. At this time, it is not possible to
reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSK), provides data analytics
solutions for customers in the insurance, natural resources,
healthcare, financial services, and risk management markets in the
United States and internationally. The Company was founded in 1971
and is headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey.


WELLS FARGO: Barnett Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHASE BARNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY D/B/A WELLS FARGO,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-015967 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Oct.
26, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY operates as a diversified financial services.
The Company provides banking, insurance, investments, mortgage,
leasing, credit cards, and consumer finance. [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
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                 jen@jibraellaw.com

WESTCARE CALIFORNIA: Cardenas Sues Over Illegal Background Check
----------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA CARDENAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WESTCARE CALIFORNIA, INC., a California
corporation; WESTCARE FOUNDATION, INC., a Nevada corporation; and
WESTCARE, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-06319 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer
reports to conduct background checks on Plaintiff and other
prospective, current, and former employees and use information from
consumer reports in connection with their hiring process without
providing proper disclosures and without obtaining proper
authorization in compliance with the law.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated current, former, and prospective employees, seeks
statutory penalties due to Defendants' systematic and willful
violations of the FCRA.

WestCare California, Inc. provides behavioral health and human
services in both residential and outpatient environments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          David Keledjian, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  david@setarehlaw.com

WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Western Union Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that a purported class
suit against its Argentina unit is still pending in court.

In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociación Civil para su
Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No.
19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA").

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for
money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA
does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign
exchange rates.

The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring
WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign
exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from
Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a
monetary value of the claim or a time period.

In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally
admissible as a class action.

The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June
2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on
statute of limitations and standing grounds.

In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later
in the proceedings. The process for notifying potential class
members has been completed, and the case is in the evidentiary
stage. Due to the stage of this matter, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend itself
vigorously.

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.

YALE UNIVERSITY: Wins Summary Judgment vs Vellali, et al.
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH VELLALI, NANCY S.
LOWERS, JAN M. TASCHNER, and JAMES MANCINI, individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the Yale University Retirement Account Plan, v. YALE
UNIVERSITY, MICHAEL A. PEEL, and THE RETIREMENT PLAN FIDUCIARY
COMMITTEE, Case No. 3:16-cv-01345-AWT (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge
Alvin W. Thompson entered an order granting the defendants' motion
for summary judgment with respect to Counts II, IV, VI, and VIII,
and otherwise denied.

The Plaintiffs bring this action under 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(2)
on behalf of the Plan against the Defendants for violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The class is "all participants and beneficiaries of the Yale
University Retirement Account Plan from August 9, 2010, through the
date of judgment, excluding the Defendants."

The plaintiffs allege in their Amended Complaint that the
defendants violated ERISA in three ways:

   (1) by breaching their fiduciary duties of prudence and
      loyalty (Counts I, III, and V),

   (2) by engaging in transactions prohibited by ERISA (Counts
       II, IV, and VI), and

   (3) with respect to Yale and Peel, by failing to monitor
       members of the Retirement Plan Fiduciary Committee to
       ensure compliance with ERISA's standards (Count VIII).
       (There is no Count VII.)

The court has dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for breach of the
duty of loyalty in Counts I, III, and V, and the claim in
Count V for the breach of the duty of prudence based on the Plan
offering too many investment options to participants and the
Plan failing to reduce fees with respect to several investments
offered by The Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of
American (TIAA). Yale University is a private Ivy League research
university in New Haven, Connecticut.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nnrzk2 at no extra charge.[CC]

[*] Consumer Class Action Suits Target Titanium Dioxide in Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is a naturally occurring white powder used
to boost colors in a wide range of food and non-food consumer
products, making colors look brighter and more defined. It can also
be used as a white pigment, added to products to increase white
opacity.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of
TiO2 as a color additive in food, drugs, and cosmetics, including
drugs and cosmetics intended for use around the eyes. 21 C.F.R.
Sections 73.575, 73.1575, 73.2575. In food, TiO2 may be used for
coloring generally, subject to two restrictions: (1) "[t]he
quantity of titanium dioxide [cannot] exceed 1 percent by weight of
the food" and (2) "[i]t may not be used to color foods for which
standards of identity have been promulgated . . . unless added
color is authorized by such standards." 21 C.F.R. Section
73.575(c). For drugs and cosmetics, the amount used must be
consistent with "good manufacturing practice." 21 C.F.R. Sections
73.1575(c), 73.2575(b).

Despite TiO2's green light from the FDA, consumers nevertheless
have begun bringing putative class actions challenging the presence
of TiO2 in consumer products, alleging that the presence of TiO2
makes the products unsafe. In Thames v. Mars, Inc., 3:22-cv-04145
(N.D. Cal. filed July 14, 2022), the first class-action lawsuit of
its kind, the plaintiff alleged violations of consumer protection
statutes based on the presence of TiO2. Following Thames,
plaintiffs quickly brought three additional class-action lawsuits
alleging similar claims of deception based on the presence of TiO2
in various consumer products ranging from candy to pain relievers
to tampons.

Thames v. Mars, Inc., 3:22-cv-04145 (N.D. Cal. filed July 14,
2022). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant materially omitted
that Skittles contained TiO2, an alleged toxin known to pose health
problems, and thus deceived the plaintiff into believing the
candies were fit for human consumption when they were not.

Mignin v. Mars, Inc., 1:22-cv-04243 (N.D. Ill. filed Aug. 11,
2022). In a nearly identical complaint to Thames, the plaintiff
alleged that the defendant materially omitted that Skittles are
unfit for human consumption because they contain TiO2. As a result
of this omission, the plaintiff was injured by paying full price
for the product when the candies were, in fact, worthless.

Morrison v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., 3:22-cv-01276 (S.D.
Cal. filed Aug. 29, 2022). The plaintiff alleged that the
defendant's marketing and labeling of Tylenol, which materially
omitted the safety concerns associated with TiO2, misled reasonable
consumers into believing that the pills were safe.

Paulson v. This is L. Inc., 1:22-cv-04665 (N.D. Ill. filed Aug. 31,
2022). The plaintiff alleged that L. brand "100% Organic Core
Tampons" misleads consumers to believe that the tampons were made
entirely from cotton and/or organic ingredients when the product
contains TiO2, as well as polyester and paraffin. In addition to
omissions, this lawsuit challenges specific misleading statements
such as "No Chlorine Bleaching and Dyes," which allegedly mislead
consumers to believe there is no added coloring.

Most recently, plaintiffs brought two additional lawsuits against a
multinational consumer goods corporation asserting claims, like
those made in Paulson, that the marketing and labeling of the
company's tampon brand were misleading due to the presence of
TiO2.

In addition to these class-action lawsuits, since May 18, 2022,
Environmental Health Advocates Inc. has filed eight nearly
identical lawsuits in California state courts asserting claims for
violation of California's Proposition 65 based on companies'
alleged failure to warn for TiO2 in a variety of personal care and
cosmetics products.[1]

                         Takeaway

This rising trend of TiO2-related litigation follows a larger
consumer and regulatory focus on the presence (or risk) of
contaminants and other allegedly harmful ingredients, such as
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and benzene.
With this in mind, companies should partner with trusted counsel to
review product formulations and label claims and consider long-term
strategies to mitigate litigation risk. [GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***