/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221109.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, November 9, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 218

                            Headlines

1ST ADVANTAGE: Faces Sonza Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
476 K LLC: Koska FLSA Suit Removed to D. Columbia
ADVOCATE AURORA: Stewart Sues Over Privacy Right Violations
ALPACA DIRECT: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fujishige Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.

ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Mermelstein Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
ATG CREDIT: Wrightsell Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
AUTHENTIC BRANDS: Weeks Sues Over False and Misleading Marketing
BALLARD DESIGNS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BP EXPLORATION: Bids to Exclude Cook Testimony in Booth Suit OK'd

BREY CORP: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRISTOL FARMS: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Schwenk Suit Affirmed
BROOKSIDE, AL: Bid for Summary Judgment in Coleman v. Police Denied
C.R. ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sapiega Suit Alleges
CABELA'S INC: Montecalvo Files Suit in D. Massachusetts

CAMILLE BECKMAN: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CIOX HEALTH: Fourth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Thompson Class Suit
CITIC CAPITAL: Tang RICO Class Suit Moved From D.N.J. to D. Del.
CITIC CAPITAL: Tang Suit Transferred to D. Delaware
CLOROX COMPANY: Scandore Files Suit in E.D. New York

COMICLINK SERVICES: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONAGRA BRANDS: Jackson Sues Over Popcorn's False "Naturals" Label
DOBRIN GROUP: Sweeney Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
DUTCHMAN HOSPITALITY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ECHO TECH: Underpays Cardiac Sonographers, Lopez FLSA Suit Claims

ELITE COMICS11: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ELITE FLAGGING: Doke FLSA Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Flaggers
EQUIFAX INC: Settles Consumer Suits Over Data Breach
EVERLAST WORLDWIDE: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FU TAI INC: Ramales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages

GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Varela Suit Removed to C.D. California
GIANT OF MARYLAND: Faces Kibec Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Maryland
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Kenan Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GOLDEN APPLE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOODYEAR TIRE: Perkins Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania

HARD ROCK: Improperly Pays Restaurant Staff, Carpenter Suit Says
INTERO REAL ESTATE: Class Deal in Chinitz TCPA Suit Gets Final Nod
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, City of Morganfield Says
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Hazleton Area Says
JUUL LABS: Faces Mid Valley Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads

JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Wilkes-Barre Claims
JUUL LABS: Tunkhannock Area Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing
JUUL LABS: Wyoming Valley Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
KEYBANK NATIONAL: Pittman Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
LA FERMIERE: Manier Sues Over Misrepresentation on Labels

LOCUST MEDICAL: Court Denies Bid to Strike Jackson's Class Claims
LONE STAR COMICS: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MARIA PABLITO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rossis Suit Alleges
MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Wray Suit
MESA AIR: Class Settlement in Lowthorp Suit Has Prelim. Approval

META PLATFORMS: Sijelmassi Sues Over Intercepted Browsing Activity
META PLATFORMS: V.P. Suit Removed to N.D. California
MIDTRONICS INC: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
MNS LTD: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MONDELEZ INT'L: Claims in Lee Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

MOTORSPORT.TV DIGITAL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NAVY FEDERAL: Anderson Suit Removed From State Court to E.D. Cal.
NCB MANAGEMENT: Keeton Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama
NEW YORK, NY: Aguilo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEWREZ LLC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Cardin Class Suit Partly Granted

OCEAN CREST SEAFOODS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OSCEOLA CHEESE: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PASHA GROUP: Arreguin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PAULA DEEN VENTURES: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PHYSICIAN'S BUSINESS: Martin Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia

R&G BRENNER: Lurie Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
RA SUSHI: Faces Canada Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages for Servers
REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Jones Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
REASONABLE HEALTH: Alexander Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Wilson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Castic Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Meehan Sues Over Engagement in Deceptive Scheme
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Class Certification Decision in Alig Suit Vacated
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Claims in Wesley Defective Ranges Suit Trimmed

SHORTBOXED LLC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SIX FLAGS: Mack Files Suit in D. New Jersey
STARRY GROUP: Kinard Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
STATE FARM: M.D. Georgia Dismisses Cudd Suit Without Prejudice
SWANK AUGUSTA: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

T. ROWE PRICE: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Voice Prints
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
THIRD EYE COMICS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
THREE SISTER'S: Fails to Properly Pay Dancers, King Suit Alleges
THRIVING BRANDS: Soldevilla Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut

TOMMY HILFIGER: Wiretaps Electronic Communications, Licea Claims
TRAVEL GUARD: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Bid Schedule
TRINET HR: Huang, et al., Win Class Certification Bid
TRUE NORTH: Mullins Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
UNITED STATES: Bid to Amend Judgment in Tanner-Brown Suit Denied

UNITED STATES: Walker's First Amended Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
VILLAGE SUPER MARKET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mendez Alleges
WEDRIVEU INC: Bids for Judgment on Pleadings in Chatman Suit Okayed

                            *********

1ST ADVANTAGE: Faces Sonza Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE SONZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1ST ADVANTAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00114 (E.D. Va., Oct. 28, 2022) is an
action against the Defendant's unlawful business practices of
assessing multiple $30 fees on an item.

According to the complaint, besides being deceptive, the
Defendant's practice breaches promises made in the Defendant's
adhesion contract. The Plaintiff and other customers of the
Defendant have been injured by the Defendant's improper fee
maximization practice.

The Defendant's improper scheme to extract funds from account
holders has victimized the Plaintiff and hundreds of other
similarly situated consumers. Unless enjoined, the Defendant will
continue to engage in these schemes and will continue to cause
substantial injury to its consumers, says the suit.

1ST ADVANTAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION FOUNDATION operates as a
financial cooperative. The Union provides financial solutions such
as loans, investment, savings, credit and debit cards, online
banking, and other related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Devon J. Munro, Esq.
          MUNRO BYRD, P.C.
          120 Day Ave. SW, First Floor
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540) 283-9343
          Facsimile: (540) 328-9290
          Email: dmunro@trialsva.com

               -and -

          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          Email: sgold@kalielgold.com

               -and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 280-4783
          Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com

               -and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          Tyler B. Ewiglebenm Esq.
          JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AK 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372-1300
          Email: chris@yourattorney.com
                 tyler@yourattorney.com

476 K LLC: Koska FLSA Suit Removed to D. Columbia
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARKO KOSKA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 476 K, LLC dba CLOAKROOM; ANTONIOS
CAVASILIOS; CARLOS HORCASITAS; and MAYMAY HORCASITAS, Case No.
C-15-CV-22-003204, was removed from the District of Columbia
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia on October 21, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Columbia assigned Case No.
1:22-cv-03232 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act.

476 K, LLC, doing business as Cloakroom, is an adult entertainment
facility owner and operator, headquartered in Washington, D.C.
[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jonathan Rosen, Esq.
         RIMON, PC
         1990 K Street NW, Suite 420
         Washington, DC 20009
         Telephone: (240) 618-3432
         E-mail: jonathan.rosen@rimonlaw.com

                 - and -

         Robert A. Cocchia, Esq.
         RIMON, PC
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 400N
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (213) 314-2938
         E-mail: robert.cocchia@rimonlaw.com

ADVOCATE AURORA: Stewart Sues Over Privacy Right Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALISTAIR STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC.; and
META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05964 (N.D. Ill.
Oct. 28, 2022) alleges violation of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant violated
the Plaintiff's privacy rights by knowingly and repeatedly
intercepting, accessing, and disclosing the personally
identifiable, sensitive and confidential statutorily-protected
patient health information of Advocate's patients without their
knowledge, authorization, or consent.

Advocate discloses its patients' personally identifiable patient
information and PHI to Facebook together in a single transmission.
This transmission occurs even though patients have not shared, nor
consented to share, such information. As a consequence of Advocate
and Facebook's conduct in knowingly and repeatedly intercepting,
accessing, and disclosing personally identifiable patient
information and PHI without patient knowledge, consent, or
authorization, says the suit.

ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC. provides health care services. The
Company offers gynecological, dental, pediatric, adult, and
geriatric care, as well as nutrition, health education, and
intervention programs, and family planning. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ALPACA DIRECT: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpaca Direct, LLC.
The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Alpaca Direct, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09168 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022).

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

Alpaca Direct -- https://www.alpacadirect.com/ -- offers a huge
selection of crochet and knitting yarns including Alpaca, Merino
wool and cotton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fujishige Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMY FUJISHIGE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV403296, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on October
21, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-06397 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's sex discrimination and failure
to prevent sex discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment
and Housing Act and unfair competition in violation of California
Business and Professions Code.

Amazon.com Services LLC is an electronic commerce company
headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Brian D. Berry, Esq.
         Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         One Market
         Spear Street Tower
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 442-1000
         Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
         E-mail: brian.berry@morganlewis.com
                 sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com

ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Mermelstein Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Credit
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Mordechai Mermelstein,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Associated Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-09190 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 26, 2022).

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

Associated Credit Service, Inc. -- https://www.acscoll.com/ -- is a
collection agency based in Spokane, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com


ATG CREDIT: Wrightsell Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ATG Credit, LLC. The
case is styled as Nicole Wrightsell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Jefferson ATG Credit, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-05911 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 26, 2022).

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

ATG Credit LLC -- https://atgcredit.com/ -- operates as an accounts
receivable management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUTHENTIC BRANDS: Weeks Sues Over False and Misleading Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Weeks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Authentic Brands Group Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09223-AT
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading marketing
practices with regard to its white Fitted Non-Iron Stretch Supima
Cotton Dress Shirts under the Brooks Brothers brand ("Product").

The neck and interior tags identify the Product as "97% Supima
Cotton" and "3% Lycra Spandex." On the Product's listing webpage,
there is a statement which emphasizes the Defendant's use of
American-grown Supima cotton for these very benefits. Consumers
value products made from Supima cotton because they are softer and
more durable than products made from non-Supima cotton. Supima
cotton is a type of extra-long staple ("ELS") cotton with a range
of 1.2 inches to 1.56 inches. The botanical name for Supima cotton
is Gossypium barbadense, and its average fiber length is 1.41
inches. While it is generally grown in the United States, reports
state that less than 1% of the cotton grown worldwide and less than
3% of the cotton grown in the U.S. is Supima.

The American Society for Testing and Materials ("ASTM") developed
the Single-Fiber Test to determine fiber lengths in finished cotton
products such as sheets and clothing The Single-Fiber Test was
applied on the Product. The results revealed that (1) 70% of the
fibers were shorter than 1.200 inches (30.48 mm), the low end of
the range for Supima cotton, and (2) 49% of the fibers were shorter
than 1.080 inches (27.432 mm).

Since Plaintiff's Product was new and unused, there could not have
been shortening of the fiber lengths due to wear. Since Plaintiff's
Product had not been worn or washed, the length of the fibers did
not shrink. Assuming the worst-case scenario of fiber shortening
such that only 52% (or only 50.44%) of the fibers qualified as
Supima cotton, this is still significantly less than advertised, as
the Product purports to be 97% Supima cotton (and 3% Lycra
spandex). The TexTest Report supports the strong inference that the
cotton used in the Product is not only Supima cotton but contains a
significant amount of less expensive shorter cotton fibers and
cotton byproduct fibers.

The failure to disclose the presence of less Supima cotton than
advertised is contrary to the Textile Fiber Products Identification
Act and its regulations. The Defendant makes other representations
and omissions with respect to the Product which are false and
misleading. Reasonable consumers must and do rely on a company to
honestly and lawfully market and describe the quality and
composition of a product, relative to itself and other comparable
products or alternatives.

The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially
less than its value as represented by Defendant. Defendant sold
more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the
absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the
expense of consumers. Had Plaintiff known the truth, she would not
have bought the Product or would have paid less for it. As a result
of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at
a premium price, approximately no less than $118.00, excluding tax
and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a
non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the
misleading representations and omissions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff bought the Product on one or more occasions.

Authentic Brands Group Inc. manufactures, markets and sells white
Fitted Non-Iron Stretch Supima Cotton Dress Shirts under the Brooks
Brothers brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BALLARD DESIGNS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ballard Designs, Inc.
The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Ballard Designs, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09225 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022).

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

Ballard Designs -- https://www.ballarddesigns.com/ -- is an
omnichannel retail company that designs and sells home furniture
and accessories with a European influence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BP EXPLORATION: Bids to Exclude Cook Testimony in Booth Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHIANTI LASHON BOOTH v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL., Section: H, Civil Action No. 17-3053, No. C/W 17-4608
(E.D. La.), Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Motions in Limine
to Exclude the General Causation Opinions of Plaintiffs' Expert,
Dr. Jerald Cook and the Motions for Summary Judgment Due to
Plaintiffs' Inability to Prove Medical Causation.

The Motions are filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production,
Inc.; BP America Production Co.; BP p.l.c.; Transocean Holdings,
LLC; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Inc.; and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

The consolidated action is one among the "B3 bundle" of cases
arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle
comprises "claims for personal injury and wrongful death due to
exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill
response (e.g., dispersant)." These cases were originally part of a
multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of
Louisiana before Judge Barbier.

During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the Deepwater Horizon
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, but the B3
plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement or were excluded from
its class definition. Subsequently, Judge Barbier severed the B3
cases from the MDL to be reallocated among the judges of this
Court. This case was reassigned to Section H.

Plaintiffs Chianti Booth and Carlos Thomas each allege continuous
exposure to oil and dispersants while working to clean-up the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They each claim to suffer from a host
of medical conditions because of the exposure. They assert claims
under the general maritime law of negligence, negligence per se,
and gross negligence with respect to the spill and its clean-up.

Now before the Court are the Defendants' Motions in Limine and
their Motions for Summary Judgment. In the Motions in Limine, the
Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' expert on medical causation,
Dr. Cook, fails to satisfy the Fifth Circuit's requirements for an
admissible general causation opinion in toxic tort cases and should
therefore be excluded as unreliable. In the Motions for Summary
Judgment, they argue that assuming their Motions in Limine are
granted, Pthe laintiffs lack expert testimony on general causation
and therefore fail to present a genuine issue of material fact as
to whether their injuries were caused by exposure to oil and
dispersants. The Plaintiffs oppose.

Judge Milazzo says B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the response. The plaintiff's burden with respect to
causation in a toxic tort case involves proof of both general
causation and specific causation.

On the topic of general causation, Dr. Cook produced a report dated
May 31, 2022 and entitled "Health Effects Among Deepwater Horizon
Oil Spill Response and Cleanup Workers: A Cause and Effect
Analysis." This report, according to Judge Milazzo, is not unique
to this case; another judge of this Court has described it as "an
omnibus, non-case specific general causation expert report that has
been used by many B3 plaintiffs."

Seven sections of the Eastern District of Louisiana, including this
one, excluded an earlier version of Dr. Cook's report dated March
14, 2022. Dr. Cook's May report does not appear to make any changes
that disturb the reasons for excluding the March version. Indeed,
at least three sections of this Court have also excluded the May
31, 2022 report as well.

Accordingly, for the same reasons articulated by Judges Africk,
Ashe, Vance, Barbier, Morgan, and Zainey, Judge Milzzo grants the
Defendants' Motions in Limine. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs cannot
prove general causation, and she also grants the Defendants'
Motions for Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3x74d2pr from Leagle.com.


BREY CORP: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brey Corp. The case
is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Brey Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-09219 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 27, 2022).

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

Brey Corporation, doing business as Hobby Works --
https://www.hobbyworks.com/ -- operates as a toy stores. The
Company offers toys, games, hobby, and craft products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRISTOL FARMS: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Schwenk Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN SCHWENK, Plaintiff and Respondent v. BRISTOL
FARMS, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. G060731, Consol No.
w/G061138 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Fourth District, Division Three, affirms the trial court's order
denying Bristol Farms' motion to compel arbitration of
representative claims brought by its employee.

The underlying employment case is based on wage and hour claims.
Schwenk began working for Bristol Farms in 2009. In September 2020,
he filed the lawsuit underlying this action, styled a class action
complaint for violation of Labor Code section 226; and violation of
Labor Code sections 2689, et seq. He alleged the first cause of
action on behalf of himself and a putative class and the second
cause of action on behalf of himself and the state pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Bristol Farms filed a
demurrer to the complaint that was overruled; then it filed its
answer in February 2021.

Seven months after Schwenk filed his case in the trial court,
Bristol Farms distributed to its employees an arbitration agreement
to include a broad range of claims, including those involved in
this litigation. The agreement contained an opt-out procedure for
employees to follow if they did not want to be bound by the
agreement.

It is undisputed that one day after Schwenk signed and submitted
the acknowledgment page of the arbitration agreement, he asked for
it back, and shredded it. He crossed out his signature on the
receipt tracking list in the presence of a Bristol Farms
administrator who then initialed and confirmed the change on the
form.

Bristol Farms contends Schwenk impliedly assented to the proposed
agreement to arbitrate. The trial court rejected the contention
because it found Schwenk did not assent to the agreement.

Bristol Farms appealed from the trial court's denial order and the
trial court granted a stay. Schwenk's counsel subsequently filed
lawsuits that resulted in an effectively identical ruling that
Bristol Farms also appealed from; the appeals have been
consolidated and the Court of Appeals' discussion resolves both.

Bristol Farms argues it is entitled to a reversal as a matter of
law based on a two-part argument: (1) Schwenk agreed to Bristol
Farms' arbitration agreement by continuing employment; and so (2)
Schwenk's failure to comply with the "opt out" procedure in the
arbitration agreement constituted his consent to be bound by the
arbitration agreement's terms.

The Court of Appeals opines that Bristol Farms' contention for
reversal under the specific facts of the case fail on a simpler
ground: Schwenk was not limited to objectively expressing his lack
of consent to Bristol Farms' proposed agreement in the manner
specified by the opt out procedure because the circumstances shown
by the record fail to support an implied consent theory of contract
formation.

In addition, the Court of Appeals opines that Schwenk's ability to
outwardly manifest his intention about whether to consent to
Bristol Farms' proposed agreement was broader than the opt out
procedure Bristol Farms relies on. Accordingly, independent of
Labor Code section 432.6's effect, Bristol Farms has not shown the
reversible error it needs to prevail on appeal.

Finally, Bristol Farms' attempt to characterize its arbitration
agreement as a "unilateral offer of novation" offers no support for
its position because it does nothing to alter our analysis about
the controlling issue of contract formation.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's
order denying Bristol Farms' motion to compel arbitration. Schwenk
is entitled to his costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4kt44bny from Leagle.com.

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, Kimberly M. Talley --
ktalley@constangy.com -- Steven B. Katz -- skatz@constangy.com --
Anthony Sbardellati -- anthony.sbardellati@akerman.com -- and
Joanna E. MacMillan -- jmacmillan@constangy.com -- for the
Defendant and Appellant.

Diversity Law Group and Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com; Law
Offices of Choi & Associates and Edward W. Choi --
edward.choi@choiandassociates.com; Hyun Legal and Dennis S. Hyun --
dhyun@hyunlegal.com; Polaris Law Group and William L. Marder --
bill@polarislawgroup.com -- for the Plaintiff and Respondent.


BROOKSIDE, AL: Bid for Summary Judgment in Coleman v. Police Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRITTANY COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE TOWN OF
BROOKSIDE, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00423-RDP
(N.D. Ala.), Judge R. David Proctor of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, denies the
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Marcus Sellers,
Mareshah Moses and Anthony Ragsdale.

On April 4, 2020, Coleman was driving on the highway in Brookside,
Alabama, when Brookside Police Officer Sellers conducted a traffic
stop because he observed that the Plaintiff was following the car
in front of her too closely. When Officer Sellers came to the
Plaintiff's window, he claimed to smell marijuana and ordered her
to exit the vehicle.

Officer Sellers immediately handcuffed the Plaintiff, and when she
asked for an explanation, he stated that it was "standard
procedure." Coleman, a 5'2" woman, was cooperating with the
officer, had no weapons, and did not act in an aggressive or
threatening manner. She was kept in handcuffs even after two
additional officers (both male) arrived. The Defendants have
provided body camera footage from those two additional officers,
Officers Ragsdale and Moses, who arrived after the Plaintiff was
handcuffed and removed from her car, but not from Officer Sellers.

Officer Sellers searched the Plaintiff's car. She acknowledged that
she had smoked marijuana earlier in the day, and that likely caused
the odor. After searching her car, Officer Sellers claimed to find
marijuana, and body camera footage shows him removing a bag from
the car. However, the marijuana charge against the Plaintiff was
ultimately dropped for lack of evidence, and the marijuana
allegedly found in her car was never produced at any point during
the criminal proceedings against her, despite requests from her
attorney.

After searching the Plaintiff's car, the Defendants conducted three
field sobriety tests on the Plaintiff, each of which she passed.
The Plaintiff received a citation and summons to attend court. The
Defendants then proceeded to tow her car.

The case is before the Court on Officer Sellers, Moses, and
Ragsdale's Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiff brings one Section 1983 claim against Officers
Sellers, Moses, and Ragsdale, in their individual capacities,
alleging unconstitutional seizures in violation of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments (Count V). Specifically, she claims that the
Defendants violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures when they (1) handcuffed her
(and kept her handcuffed) during the traffic stop; and (2) towed
and impounded her vehicle. The Defendants argue they are entitled
to qualified immunity from the Plaintiff's claims.

Judge Proctor denies the Motion because a reasonable jury could
find that the Defendants violated the Plaintiff's clearly
established rights when they handcuffed her and towed her car
without proper justification.

First, Judge Proctor opines that the Defendants were acting within
their discretionary authority because conducting a traffic stop and
impounding a vehicle pursuant to a criminal ordinance are
legitimate law enforcement functions for police officers. However,
the Plaintiff has demonstrated that qualified immunity is not
appropriate by pointing to genuine factual disputes over whether
Defendants acted reasonably when handcuffing Plaintiff and
impounding her vehicle. Resolving any doubts in favor of the
Plaintiff, the non-movant, a reasonable jury could find that the
Defendants violated her clearly established Fourth Amendment
rights, and thus summary judgment is not warranted at this stage.

Next, Judge Proctor holds that at no point did the Plaintiff give
Officer Sellers, or any other officer, any reason to believe she
posed a threat in any way, including threats to them, herself, or
their investigation. The Defendants do not contest this claim, nor
do they provide any reason for handcuffing her. Moreover, the body
camera footage the Defendants have provided begins after Officer
Sellers handcuffed the Plaintiff and thus does not depict the
circumstances leading up to the handcuffing. On this sparse
evidentiary record, the Defendants are not entitled to summary
judgment.

Finally, Judge Proctor finds that police may not tow a person's
vehicle without lawful justification. In the case, there is a
genuine factual dispute as to whether towing the Plaintiff's car
was reasonable under the circumstances, and thus summary judgment
is also not appropriate for this claim.

A corresponding Order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2dj4fkbp from Leagle.com.


C.R. ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sapiega Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SAPIEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-05973 (N.D., Ill., Oct. 29, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Sapiega was employed by the Defendants as Driver.

C.R. ENGLAND, INC. provides transportation services. The Company
offers truck driving training, satellite tracking, communication,
fleet billing, load tracking, electronic commerce, order
consolidation, route optimization, and transport modeling services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          SIMON LAW CO.
          5000 Rockside Road
          Liberty Plaza - Suite 520
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 816-8696
          Email: james@simonsayspay.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          Email: mike@fradinlaw.com

CABELA'S INC: Montecalvo Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cabela's Inc. The
case is styled as Peter Montecalvo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Cabela's Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-11837 (D. Mass., Oct. 27, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Cabela's Inc. -- https://www.cabelas.com/shop/en -- is an American
retailer that specializes in hunting, fishing, boating, camping,
shooting and other outdoor recreation merchandise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CAMILLE BECKMAN: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camille Beckman
Corporation. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Camille Beckman
Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-09169 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022).

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

Camille Beckman Corporation -- https://camillebeckman.com/ --
retails beauty and personal care products online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CIOX HEALTH: Fourth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Thompson Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMMIE THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; DEBRA LOVE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CIOX
HEALTH, LLC, d/b/a IOD Incorporated; SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-2102 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's
dismissal of the complaint.

South Carolina law gives patients a right to obtain copies of their
medical records, while capping the fees a physician, or other owner
may bill for providing them. Asserting they were charged excessive
fees, Plaintiffs Tammie Thompson and Debra Love sued third-party
medical records companies that fulfilled their requests, but which
do not -- and under South Carolina law, cannot -- own those
records.

Thompson and Love were injured in unspecified accidents and treated
by South Carolina health care providers. Seeking to pursue personal
injury lawsuits, they requested their medical records from the
relevant providers. Those records -- and accompanying invoices --
were supplied by Ciox and ScanSTAT, "information management
companies" that retrieve medical records from health care providers
and transmit them to requesting patients or patient
representatives.

Claiming the invoiced fees were too high or otherwise illegal,
Thompson and Love filed a putative class action against Ciox and
ScanSTAT in federal district court. The complaint listed four
claims, all arising under South Carolina law.

The district court dismissed the complaint on two separate grounds:
(1) that the South Carolina Physicians' Patient Records Act
(Patient Records Act or Act) does not apply to medical records
companies like Ciox and ScanSTAT; and (2) even if it did, the Act
creates no private right of action.

The Fourth Circuit reviews the district court's decision de novo.
In its view, this appeal comes down to one question: Does the
Patient Records Act cover companies like Ciox and ScanSTAT?

To begin, the Fourth Circuit declines the Plaintiffs' belated
request to certify this question to the Supreme Court of South
Carolina. The Plaintiffs chose to file suit in a federal forum, and
they never asked the district court to certify any questions to the
state courts. Nor is this a situation where existing authority "is
clearly insufficient" to resolve the question before the Fourth
Circuit.

Next, the Fourth Circuit opines that the problem for the Plaintiffs
is straightforward: The "plain and ordinary meaning" of the Patient
Records Act does not cover the kind of entities they have sued. The
parties agree that when companies like Ciox and ScanSTAT fulfill
requests for copies of patient records, they do so as agents for
the doctors and hospitals who are, under South Carolina law, the
only permissible owners of such records. The Patient Records Act
says what it does, and the Plaintiffs identify no South Carolina
authority for the proposition that it is absurd to require claims
to be brought against certain defendants even when it may be more
convenient to sue others.

The Fourth Circuit's conclusion that the Patient Records Act does
not apply to Ciox and ScanSTAT is enough to affirm the dismissal of
all of the Plaintiffs' claims. Their first and fourth causes of
action directly accuse Ciox and ScanSTAT of violating the Act. And
their second and third causes of action likewise fail because they
are, as pled, premised on the notion that Ciox and ScanSTAT (rather
than any owner of medical records) "charged more than is allowed
by" the Patient Records Act or "acted in direct violation of " it.

Because the statutory obligations at issue apply only to physicians
and other owners of medical records, not medical records companies,
the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the
complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y8zun9hk from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: James C. Bradley -- jbradley@rpwb.com -- ROGERS, PATRICK,
WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for
Appellants. Gilad Yair Bendheim -- gilad.bendheim@kirkland.com --
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, New York, for the Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Nina H. Fields -- nfields@rpwb.com -- Caleb M. Hodge,
ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South
Carolina, for Appellants. A. Victor Rawl, Jr. -- vrawl@grsm.com --
Brittany T. Bihun -- bbihun@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES LLP,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees ScanSTAT Technologies
LLC. Jay P. Lefkowitz -- lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- Mason E.
Reynolds -- mason.reynolds@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP,
New York, New York, for Appellee Ciox Health, LLC.


CITIC CAPITAL: Tang RICO Class Suit Moved From D.N.J. to D. Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN YONG TANG and FARIS AL KOOHEJI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CITIC CAPITAL
HOLDINGS LTD., HARBIN PHARMACEUTICAL GROUP HOLDING CO., LTD.,
HARBIN PHARMACEUTICAL GROUP CO., LTD., KENNETH A. MARTINDALE,
TRICIA K. TOLIVAR, HSING CHOW, RACHEL LAU, MICHELE S. MEYER, ALAN
WAN, YONG KAI WONG, ALAN D. FELDMAN, MICHAEL F. HINES, AMY B. LANE,
PHILIP E. MALLOTT, ROBERT F. MORAN, EVERCORE INC., GREGORY BERUBE,
ABC COMPANY, and JOHN DOE, Case No. 2:21-cv-17008, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on October 24,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Delaware assigned Case No.
1:22-cv-01389-UNA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the New
Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act,
conspiracy, fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, conversion,
negligence, and aiding and abetting a conspiracy.

CITIC Capital Holdings Ltd. is a global private equity firm based
in China.

Harbin Pharmaceutical Group Holding Co., Ltd. is a state-owned
pharmaceutical company in China.

Harbin Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. is a state-owned
pharmaceutical company in China.

Evercore Inc. is a global independent investment banking advisory
firm based in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         John Y. Tang, Esq.
         TANG PC
         655 Summit Avenue
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 676-0757
         Facsimile: (212) 981-4869
         E-mail: john.tang@gettang.com

CITIC CAPITAL: Tang Suit Transferred to D. Delaware
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Young Tang, Faris Al Kooheji, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. CITIC CAPITAL HOLDINGS LTD., et
al., was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District
Court of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware on Oct. 27, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 22-50455-KBO to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Money/Property.

CITIC Capital Holdings Limited -- https://www.citiccapital.com/ --
is an alternative investment management and advisory company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants appear pro se.


CLOROX COMPANY: Scandore Files Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Clorox Company.
The case is styled as Charles Scandore, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Clorox Company, Case No.
2:22-cv-06545-GRB-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

The Clorox Company -- https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/ -- is an
American global manufacturer and marketer of consumer and
professional products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          David Magagna, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 592-1500
          Fax: (215) 592-4663
          Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                 dmagagna@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Harris Markowitz, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (845) 483-7100
          Email: markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Phone: (516) 873-9550
          Fax: (516) 747-5024
          Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Phone: (917) 444-1960
          Fax: (888) 749-7747
          Email: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


COMICLINK SERVICES: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ComicLink Services,
LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. ComicLink Services, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09199 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022).

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

ComicLink -- https://www.comiclink.com/ -- is the world's leading
third-party grading service for pop culture collectibles, including
comic books, trading cards, magazines, concert posters and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONAGRA BRANDS: Jackson Sues Over Popcorn's False "Naturals" Label
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELOISE JACKSON-DORSEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05863 (N.D. Ill., October 24, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, unjust enrichment, violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act and State Consumer Fraud Acts, and
breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose, and Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its microwave popcorn under the Orville Redenbacher brand. The
Defendant represented the product as "Naturals" and containing
"Only Real Ingredients" but in reality, the product contains mixed
tocopherols, a non-natural and non-real ingredient, as mentioned on
its back panel list. The statement of "Naturals" is misleading
because consumers do not expect the product to contain non-natural
ingredients like mixed tocopherols. As a result of the Defendant's
false and misleading representations and omissions, the product is
sold at a premium price, says the suit.

Conagra Brands, Inc. is a food manufacturer, with a principal place
of business in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. [BN]

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

DOBRIN GROUP: Sweeney Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Sweeney, on behalf of himself and a class of others
similarly situated, v. DOBRIN GROUP, INC. DBA THE TESTING COMPANY,
a California Corporation; ELEVATE STAFFING INC., a California
Corporation; BORIS DOBRIN, an Individual; VADIM DOBRIN, an
Individual; EDWARD WOOD, an Individual; JAMES ANDERSON, an
Individual; CARINA FILEK, an Individual; and, DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
INCLUSIVE, Case No. 22STCV34436 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Oct. 27, 2022), is brought against the Defendants failure to
provide meal periods or compensation; failure to provide rest
periods or compensation; failure to pay wages: minimum wages and/or
overtime; failure to furnish and keep accurate wage statements and
payroll waiting time penalties violations of the UCL penalties
under PAGA.

The Plaintiff was not provided an off-duty meal break when he
worked at least five hours in a workday. The Plaintiff was not
relived of all duties during his work day and instead remained
on-duty throughout her shift. On many occasions, the Plaintiff was
also provided untimely on-duty meal breaks. Also, the Plaintiff was
not provided a second meal break when he worked in excess of 10
hours per day.

The Plaintiff was not permitted to take lawful ten-minute rest
breaks when he worked at least 3.5 hours in a workday. On many
occasions, Plaintiff was also not provided timely rest breaks.
Also, the Plaintiff was not provided a third rest break when he
worked in excess of 10 hours per day. At all times during the
Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the Defendants did not
compensate Plaintiff one additional hour of pay at the Plaintiff's
regular rate of pay for each day a lawful rest break was not
provided.

California law requires an employer, such as the Defendants, to pay
overtime compensation to all non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff
and the other class members do not presently qualify, and have not
at any time during the class period qualified, under any exemption
from the requirement that their employer pay overtime compensation
under California law. Therefore, the Plaintiff and the other class
members are entitled to be paid overtime compensation for all
overtime hours worked, including hours worked during a meal break
and as a result of working a split shift premium, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendants from March 2021 to
March 2022 as an hourly paid non-exempt employee.

DOBRIN GROUP, INC. DBA THE TESTING COMPANY. is a California
corporation authorized to do business and doing business in the
State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Morris Nazarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MORRIS NAZARIAN
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1790
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 284-7333
          Facsimile: (310) 284-7332


DUTCHMAN HOSPITALITY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dutchman Hospitality
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Dutchman Hospitality
Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09245 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022).

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

Dutchman Hospitality Group -- https://dhgroup.com/ -- is a
hospitality company headquartered in Walnut Creek, Ohio operating
seven restaurants, five inns, six bakeries, seven shops, a
wholesale food supplier, and a 500-seat theatre.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ECHO TECH: Underpays Cardiac Sonographers, Lopez FLSA Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICKY LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ECHO TECH UNLIMITED-ULTRA SOUND SCANNING
SERVICES, INC. and RAY MALDONADO, Defendants, Case No.
4:22-cv-03669 (S.D. Tex., October 24, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Lopez worked for Echo Tech as a registered cardiac sonographer
from October of 2020 through June 16, 2021, and then August 18,
2021 through May of 2022.

Echo Tech Unlimited-Ultra Sound Scanning Services, Inc. is a
multi-imaging mobile service provider based in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
         Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
         THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
         P.O. Box 10099
         Houston, TX 77206
         Telephone: (713) 868-3388
         Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
         E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com
                 jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

ELITE COMICS11: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elite Comics11 LLC.
The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Elite Comics11 LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09197 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022).

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

Elite Comics11 -- https://comicselitecomics.com/ -- is the largest
seller of Comic Books on Facebook offering exclusive covers for
Marvel, Dynamite, Image, DC, IDW and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELITE FLAGGING: Doke FLSA Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Flaggers
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY DOKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELITE FLAGGING SOLUTIONS LLC, TERRELL
PHABIAN, and JANE DOE PHABIAN, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01822-GMS (D. Ariz., October 24, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arizona's wage statutes.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a flagger since
January 1, 2022.

Elite Flagging Solutions LLC is a provider of traffic control
services, headquartered in Surprise, Arizona. [BN]

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

EQUIFAX INC: Settles Consumer Suits Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
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 on July 19, 2019 and
July 22, 2019, the company entered into multiple agreements that
resolved the U.S. consolidated consumer class action cases,
captioned "In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation," MDL No. 2800 and the investigations of the Federal
Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the
Attorneys General of 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico and the New York State Department of Financial Services.

The settlement became effective on January 11, 2022. Under the
terms of the Consumer Settlement, the company contributed $380.5
million to a non-reversionary settlement fund to provide
restitution for U.S. consumers identified by the company whose
personal information was compromised as a result of the 2017
cybersecurity incident as well as to pay reasonable attorneys' fees
and reasonable costs and expenses for the plaintiffs' counsel in
the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation (not to exceed $80.5 million),
settlement administration costs and notice costs.

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


EVERLAST WORLDWIDE: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everlast Worldwide,
Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Everlast Worldwide, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-09211 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022).

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

Everlast is an American brand of sports equipment, focused on
boxing, mixed martial arts and physical fitness, which markets its
products worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FU TAI INC: Ramales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Perez Ramales, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. FU TAI INC. (D/B/A MERRYLAND BUFFET), CUN YU LIN, QING
LIN, and SHI DONG, Case No. 1:22-cv-09177 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26,
2022), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the
N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders
of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff Perez worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff Perez the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants maintained
a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other
employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing
the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and
state law and regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a food preparer and dishwasher at the
restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Asian restaurant,
located in Bronx, New York under the name "Merryland Buffet."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Varela Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rochelle Varela, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Company,
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV30991 was removed from
the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 26, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-07801-MCS-KS to
the proceeding.

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

The Ghirardelli Chocolate Company -- https://www.ghirardelli.com/
-- is an American confectioner, wholly owned by Swiss confectioner
Lindt & Sprungli.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
          Christina Mirzaie, Esq.
          Ryan J Clarkson, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Phone: (213) 788-4050
          Fax: (213) 788-4070
          Email: bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 cmirzaie@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dale J. Giali, Esq.
          Keri E Borders, Esq.
          Rebecca Bari Johns, Esq.
          KING AND SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: ((213) 443-4329
          Fax: (213) 443-4310
          Email: dgiali@kslaw.com
                 kborders@kslaw.com
                 rjohns@kslaw.com


GIANT OF MARYLAND: Faces Kibec Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER KIBEC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GIANT OF MARYLAND, LLC d/b/a GIANT,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02733-BPG (D. Md., October 24, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay wages,
including proper minimum wages and overtime, for all hours worked
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Minimum
Wage Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and the Virginia Payment
of Wage Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee in
Virginia.

Giant of Maryland, LLC, doing business as Giant, is an operator of
grocery stores, headquartered in Prince George's County, Maryland.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
         PARMET PC
         3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
         Houston, TX 77056
         Telephone: (713) 999-5228
         E-mail: matt@parmet.law

                 - and -

         Angeli Murthy, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000
         Plantation, FL 33324
         Telephone: (954) 327-5369
         Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
         E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com

GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Kenan Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toya Kenan and Monica Cooper, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. GLOBAL PAYMENTS, INC., a Georgia Corporation,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04270-JPB (N.D. Ga., Oct. 26, 2022), is brought
arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and for common
law claims of breach of contract or (in the alternative) unjust
enrichment by failing to pay overtime compensation.

The Defendant requires its CSRs to work a full-time schedule, plus
overtime, however, the Defendant does not compensate CSRs for all
work performed. The Defendant requires their CSRs to perform
compensable work tasks off-the-clock before and after their
scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal periods. This policy
results in CSRs not being paid for all time worked, including
overtime.

Because the Defendant's CSRs typically worked 40 hours or more in a
workweek, the Defendant's policies and practices also deprived them
of overtime pay in many workweeks. The Defendant knew or should
have known that the time spent by CSRs in connection with the
pre-shift, meal-period and post-shift activities was compensable
under the law. Unpaid wages related to the off-the-clock work are
owed to CSRs at the FLSA mandated overtime premium of one and
one-half times their regular hourly rate because CSRs regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs who worked for the Defendant as a remote customer
service representatives (CSRs).

The Defendant "is a technology and software company, providing the
world's leading complete commerce ecosystem to businesses of every
size."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Y. Coffman, Esq.
          PARKS, CHESIN, & WALBERT, PC
          75 14th Street, 26th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 873-8000
          Email: acoffman@pcwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          ASH LAW, PLLC
          402 W. Liberty Street
          Ann Arbor, MI 48178
          Phone: (734) 234-5583
          Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com

               - and -

          Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
          HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
          126 Main St.
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903
          Phone: (734) 662-4426
          Email: orod@hooperhathaway.com


GOLDEN APPLE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Apple
Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Golden Apple
Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09203 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27,
2022).

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

Golden Apple has been supplying after-market auto parts for every
type of vehicle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOODYEAR TIRE: Perkins Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Company. The case is styled as Kendra Perkins, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01521-WSH (W.D. Pa., Oct. 27,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARD ROCK: Improperly Pays Restaurant Staff, Carpenter Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY CARPENTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (STP), INC. and
HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL, INC. (GA), Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-04224-AT (N.D. Ga., October 24, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a server and bartender at Hard Rock
Cafe restaurant in San Antonio, Texas and Atlanta, Georgia from
approximately July 2018 to August 2020.

Hard Rock Cafe International (STP), Inc. is an operator of a
nationwide chain of restaurants with the name Hard Rock Cafe, doing
business in Georgia.

Hard Rock Cafe International, Inc. (GA) is an operator of a
nationwide chain of restaurants with the name Hard Rock Cafe, doing
business in Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Arnold J. Lizana, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
         1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
         Atlanta, GA 30361
         Telephone: (404) 207-1559
         Facsimile: (470) 231-0672

                  - and -

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

                  - and -

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

INTERO REAL ESTATE: Class Deal in Chinitz TCPA Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD CHINITZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. INTERO REAL
ESTATE SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05623-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants:

   (1) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
       Settlement; and

   (2) the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and
       Costs and Service Awards.

On Sept. 13, 2018, former named Plaintiff Chinitz initiated a class
action lawsuit alleging Intero violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"), and its
implementing regulations, 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200, as well as
California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Sections 17200-17210 ("UCL"). He alleged he received, inter alia,
unwanted telephone solicitations on behalf of Intero to residential
telephone lines he had previously registered on the National Do Not
Call ("DNC") Registry and repeated unwanted telemarketing calls on
his residential telephone lines after he had asked Intero and/or
its agents not to call him back. The Court certified the National
DNC Class and the Internal DNC Class (the latter as to injunctive
relief only). Chinitz sought approval of a class notice plan for
the National DNC Class, which the Court approved in part.

The Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment and Intero moved
for summary judgment. In March 2021, they filed a motion to amend
the scheduling order, amend the Complaint, and substitute the class
representative because Chinitz, unbeknownst to the Class Counsel,
had attempted to negotiate a settlement directly with Intero. On
April 12, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
certified class' motion for partial summary judgment. It denied
Intero's summary judgment motion, except as to the UCL claim and
granted the Motion to Substitute. The Plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Complaint adding allegations specific to Mitchell and
Kelly, and the Court dismissed the UCL claim.

Meanwhile, on April 1, 2021, the Court referred the parties to
Chief United States Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for settlement
discussions. The parties participated in Zoom settlement
conferences before Chief Magistrate Judge Spero in July and
September 2021. Chief Magistrate Judge Spero scheduled an
additional 2.5-hour settlement conference on Sept. 22, 2021, at
which the parties reached agreement in principle on the terms of a
settlement of the entire case. They then negotiated the precise
terms of the Settlement Agreement, which was executed on Oct. 27,
2021.

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Approval on Oct.
29, 2021. The Parties did not discuss fees and expenses until after
agreement on the terms of the settlement for the class. The Court
held a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval on April 7,
2022 and entered an order granting preliminary approval the same
day.

The Settlement Class is defined as: All persons in the United
States who: (a) received two or more calls on their residential
telephone number; (b) that had a duration of more than zero
seconds; (c) initiated by, or on behalf of, a real estate
salesperson at a time when Intero or Intero Referral Services was
the salesperson's responsible broker (as reflected in the records
maintained by the California Department of Real Estate ('DRE'));
(d) promoting the purchase of Intero's goods or services; (e)
placed through the dialing platform provided by Mojo Dialing
Solutions, LLC, the call records for which appear in one of 35
account files, identified in Appendix A to the Court's order
granting class certification in the Litigation; (f) within a
12-month period; (g) whose telephone number(s) were on the NDNCR
for at least 31 days prior to the calls; and (h) at any time since
Sept. 13, 2014.

Any class member who submits a timely, valid Approved Claim will
receive a payment of $350. The Settlement Agreement also provides
injunctive relief, including development and implementation of
procedures to ensure compliance with the TCPA's do-not-call
provisions and training for Intero representatives.

After preliminary approval, the parties provided Notice of the
Settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and
Preliminary Approval Order. To disseminate the notice, KCC, the
Settlement Administrator, carried out the terms of the Settlement
Agreement. As to requests for exclusion and objections, KCC
received three requests for exclusion and no objections.

The Plaintiffs moved for final approval on Aug. 19, 2022 and filed
a supplemental declaration from the Settlement Administrator on
Oct. 19, 2022.

The Plaintiffs seeks (1) final approval of the proposed class
action settlement; (2) approval of the Class Counsel's application
for $2,775,000 in attorneys' fees and costs (the costs total
$349,695.56 and the fees total $2,425,304.44); and (3) approval of
the Named Plaintiffs' request for service awards of $5,000 each.
The Court heard the Plaintiffs' motions on Oct. 20, 2022.

Judge Freeman concludes that the requirements of Rule 23 are met
and thus that certification of the class for settlement purposes is
appropriate. She further concludes that the notice of the proposed
settlement was adequate, the settlement is not the result of
collusion, and that the settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable. Accordingly, she grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Judge Freeman also grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Service Awards. She has reviewed the
Class Counsel's itemized lists of costs and finds that all of the
expenses were necessary to the prosecution of this litigation. She
further finds the amount of attorneys' fees to be reasonable and in
line with rates approved in this District for attorneys of similar
skill and experience.

Lastly, Judge Freeman approves the timely requests for exclusion by
Joseph Ponte, Hosea Colvin, and Ada Colvin.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2eye8xhy from Leagle.com.


JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, City of Morganfield Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF MORGANFIELD, KENTUCKY, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP,
INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU
MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06379 (N.D. Cal., October
21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for public
nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, punitive damages, unjust
enrichment, strict product liability for failure to warn and design
defect, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

City of Morganfield is a Kentucky municipality.

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

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Nu Mark LLC is a tobacco company based in Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]

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

JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Hazleton Area Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAZLETON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP,
INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU
MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06369 (N.D. Cal., October
21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, punitive damages, unjust enrichment, strict
product liability for failure to warn and design defect, and
violations of Pennsylvania Public Nuisance and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Hazleton Area School District is a public school district with its
administrative offices located at 1515 West 23rd Street, Hazle
Township, Pennsylvania.

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

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Nu Mark LLC is a tobacco company based in Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]

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

JUUL LABS: Faces Mid Valley Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
MID VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP,
INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU
MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06378 (N.D. Cal., October
21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, punitive damages, unjust enrichment, strict
product liability for failure to warn and design defect, and
violations of Pennsylvania Public Nuisance and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Mid Valley School District is a public school district with its
administrative offices located at 52 Underwood Road, Throop,
Pennsylvania.

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

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Nu Mark LLC is a tobacco company based in Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]

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

JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Wilkes-Barre Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILKES-BARRE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; NU MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM
BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06374 (N.D. Cal.,
October 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, punitive damages, unjust enrichment,
strict product liability for failure to warn and design defect, and
violations of Pennsylvania Public Nuisance and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Wilkes-Barre Area School District is a public school district with
its administrative offices located at 730 South Main Street,
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

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

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Nu Mark LLC is a tobacco company based in Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]

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

JUUL LABS: Tunkhannock Area Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TUNKHANNOCK AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; NU MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM
BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06372 (N.D. Cal.,
October 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, punitive damages, unjust enrichment,
strict product liability for failure to warn and design defect, and
violations of Pennsylvania Public Nuisance and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Tunkhannock Area School District is a public school district with
its administrative offices located at 41 Philadelphia Avenue,
Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania.

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

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Nu Mark LLC is a tobacco company based in Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]

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

JUUL LABS: Wyoming Valley Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WYOMING VALLEY WEST SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; NU MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM
BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06377 (N.D. Cal.,
October 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, punitive damages, unjust enrichment,
strict product liability for failure to warn and design defect, and
violations of Pennsylvania Public Nuisance and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Wyoming Valley West School District is a public school district
with its administrative offices located at 450 North Maple Avenue,
Kingston, Pennsylvania.

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

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Nu Mark LLC is a tobacco company based in Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]

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

KEYBANK NATIONAL: Pittman Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keybank National
Association, et al. The case is styled as Jacint Pittman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Keybank National Association, Keycorp. and Overby-Seawell Company,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01513-RJC (W.D. Pa., Oct. 26, 2022).

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

KeyBank -- https://www.key.com/personal/index.html -- the primary
subsidiary of KeyCorp, is a regional bank headquartered in
Cleveland, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          1575 McFarland Road, Ste. 305
          Pittsburgh, PA 15216
          Phone: (215) 884-2491
          Email: yateslaw@aol.com


LA FERMIERE: Manier Sues Over Misrepresentation on Labels
---------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Manier, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. LA FERMIERE INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Case No. 5:22-cv-01894 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2022), is brought
pursuant to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act or "CLRA"; the Unfair
Competition Law or "UCL"; and the False Advertising Law as a result
of the Defendants misrepresentation on the labels of its yogurt
products.

The Defendant profits off the booming market for foreign made goods
by misrepresenting on the labels of its yogurt products that they
are made in France. In reality, the yogurts are made in New York.
The yogurts are sold in several flavors, including, vanilla bean,
pressed lemon, orange blossom honey, rose, lavender, mango passion
fruit, raspberry blueberry, peach apricot, strawberry pomegranate,
salted caramel, pineapple coconut and plain. In addition, there are
seasonal flavors including pumpkin spice and chestnut.
Collectively, all flavors of yogurt are referred to as "Products".
The front label on the Products are all identical, except for the
name of the flavor, the picture associated with the flavor, the
size of the jar, and a "Seasonal Flavor" stamp for the seasonal
flavors.

The Defendant's marketing, labeling and sale of the Products
misleads a reasonable consumer to believe that the yogurts are made
in France, by using the words "Naturally French" on the front
label. Consumers interpret that statement to mean that the products
are made in France, when in actuality they are made in the United
States, in New York. Consumers care about where and how products
are made.

The Defendant is able to charge a premium price based on these
misrepresentations and consumers pay this premium price believing
that the yogurt they are purchasing was actually made in France.
The Plaintiff was misled by the affirmative misrepresentations on
the Defendant's product packaging. Had she been aware of the
misrepresentations, she would not have purchased the Defendant's
products, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has purchased the Products several times during the
relevant statute of limitations period for personal and household
consumption.

The Defendant is in the business of manufacturing, distributing and
selling yogurts throughout the country, including in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Travis, Esq.
          BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
          4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: (619) 353-7966
          Email: ben@bentravislaw.com


LOCUST MEDICAL: Court Denies Bid to Strike Jackson's Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERARD JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOCUST MEDICAL, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-CV-00424 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Matthew W.
Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania denies Locust's motion to strike the class
allegations.

In March 2022, Jackson, on behalf of himself on all similarly
situated individuals, filed a complaint against Locust alleging
that Locust violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"). In his complaint, Jackson avers that Locust contracts
with a telemarketing firm to place calls to consumers with whom
Locust has no relationship in order to sell durable medical
equipment. Jackson's telephone number has been listed on the
National Do Not Call Registry ("NDNCR") since Dec. 4, 2006.
Nevertheless, Locust -- or a telemarketing firm acting on its
behalf -- placed telemarketing calls to Jackson on eight occasions
in December of 2021.

The telephone calls to Jackson followed a similar script and
offered medical braces to help with body pain. Eventually, Jackson
agreed to purchase medical braces and discovered that it was Locust
that was calling; Jackson's insurance later confirmed that a claim
for the medical braces had been submitted by Locust. Jackson did
not consent to, or request, the calls from Locust.

Mr. Jackson seeks class certification of his claim, and defines his
proposed class as: All persons in the United States whose (1)
telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at
least 31 days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing
calls from or on behalf of Defendant (3) within a 12-month period,
(4) from four years prior the filing of the Complaint.

Locust now moves to strike the proposed class, asserting that the
allegations fail to meet the requirements for class certification.
Specifically, it asserts that the class definition may include
individuals who canceled or opted out of the NDNCR or who were
removed from the NDNCR by the administrator. Because the proposed
class does not exclude such individuals, Locust argues that it
fails both the commonality and predominance requirements for class
certification. Furthermore, it contends that the proposed class
fails to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

Mr. Jackson responds that striking the class allegation is
inappropriate before discovery has been conducted, as issues of
consent to receive phone calls or the potential cancellation of an
individual's registration on the NDNCR are difficult to resolve
prior to discovery. Locust has not filed a reply brief and the time
to do so has lapsed, rendering this matter ripe for disposition.

Judge Brann opines that at this stage in the proceedings -- prior
to any discovery having been conducted -- he cannot find that the
complaint itself demonstrates that the requirements for maintaining
a class action cannot be met. It simply is not possible at this
stage of litigation to determine whether some members of the
proposed class were removed from the NDNCR or whether Locust will
be able to sustain its burden of demonstrating that some proposed
class members consented to receive communications from Locust.
Finally, while Locust argues that Jackson cannot meet the Rule
23(b)(2) standard requiring that Locust "acted or refused to act on
grounds that apply generally to the class," that alleged failure is
far from dispositive.

Because the complaint itself does not "demonstrate that the
requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met," Locust
must challenge class certification at a later stage in these
proceedings. Locust's motion to strike the class allegations is
denied.

An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n74m3wm from Leagle.com.


LONE STAR COMICS: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lone Star Comics,
Inc. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Lone Star Comics, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09191 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022).

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

Lone Star Comics was a chain of comic book stores located in the
Dallas-Fort Worth area in north central Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARIA PABLITO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rossis Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUNIOR GERONIMO ROSSIS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v MARIA PABLITO GROCERY CORP.(d/b/a
MARIA PABLITO DELI & GROCERY), N & L GROCERY STORE INC. (d/b/a
MARIA PABLITO DELI & GROCERY), ELVIN PIMENTEL, and JUAN ROSARIO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09259 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2022) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
and provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Rossis was employed by the Defendants as general worker
and stock worker.

MARIA PABLITO GROCERY CORP. owns and operates a deli, located at
1551 Sheridan Avenue, Bronx, NY 10457 under the name "Maria Pablito
Deli & Grocery."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Wray Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wray v. Fisher Price, et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01067 (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 Wray 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/3FQ9xFF
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

MESA AIR: Class Settlement in Lowthorp Suit Has Prelim. Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, David G. Lowthorp, Plaintiff v. Mesa Air Group
Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-20-00648-PHX-MTL (D.
Ariz.), Judge Michael T. Liburdi of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona grants the parties' Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement and the Class Representative's Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Judge Liburdi preliminarily finds that the Court will likely be
able to approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2), subject to further
consideration at the Settlement Hearing set for April 6, 2023, at
9:00 a.m. (Arizona time). He approves the form, substance, and
requirements of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action (the Notice) and the Proof of Claim and Release form
(the Claim Form), however, the parties will alter the Notice and
Claim Form to reflect the terms and dates set in the Order.

Judge Liburdi approves the retention of A.B. Data, Ltd., the firm
retained by the Lead Counsel, as the Claims Administrator. He also
approves the appointment of Huntington National Bank or its
successor as the Escrow Agent to manage and administer the
Settlement Fund for the benefit of the Class.

Not later than 7 days after the Court signs and enters the Order,
Mesa will provide and/or cause its transfer agent to provide to the
Lead Counsel transfer records containing the names and addresses of
Persons who may have purchased or acquired Mesa Air Group Inc.'s
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO commenced
on Aug.t 9, 2018. This information will be kept confidential and
will not be used for any purpose other than to provide the notice
contemplated by the Order.

Not later than 21 days after entry of the Preliminary Approval
Order (the Notice Date), the Claims Administrator, will mail the
Notice and Claim Form to the list of record holders of Mesa
securities, and will post to its website: (1) the Stipulation and
its exhibits, (2) this Order, and (3) a copy of the Notice (124-2)
and Claim Form.

The Claims Administrator will use reasonable efforts to give notice
to nominee purchasers such as brokerage firms and other Persons and
entities that purchased or acquired Mesa securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's IPO as record owners but not as
beneficial owners. Such nominees will either: (a) within 10 days of
receipt of the Notice and Claim Form, request from the Claims
Administrator sufficient copies of the Notice and Claim Form to
forward to all such beneficial owners and within 10 days after
receipt thereof forward them to all such beneficial owners; or (b)
within 10 days of receipt of the Notice and Claim Form, provide a
list of the names, addresses, and email addresses (to the extent
known) to the Claims Administrator and the Claims Administrator is
ordered to send the Notice promptly to such beneficial owners.

The Claims Administrator shall, if requested, reimburse nominees or
custodians out of the Settlement Fund solely for their reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing notice to beneficial
owners, up to $0.70 per unit if the nominee or custodian elects to
undertake the mailing of the Notice and Claim Form or up to $0.10
per name if the nominee or custodian provides the names and
addresses to the Claims Administrator, which expenses would not
have been incurred except for the sending of such notice, and
subject to further order of this Court with respect to any dispute
concerning such reimbursement.

Judge Liburdi approves the form of the Summary Notice and directs
that the Claims Administrator will cause the Summary Notice to be
published in Investor's Business Daily and transmitted over
GlobeNewswire within 14 days after the Notice Date.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (Lead Counsel) shall, at least 7 days prior to
the Settlement Hearing, file with the Court proof of mailing of the
Notice and Claim Form and proof of publishing of the Summary
Notice.

Putative Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request
exclusion from the Class will not be eligible to receive any
payment out of the Net Settlement Fund as described in the
Stipulation and Notice.

The Court will consider any Settlement Class Member's objection to
the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the application for an
award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and/or an award to the Lead
Plaintiff only if such Settlement Class Member has delivered by
hand or sent by mail written objections, postmarked no later than
March 17, 2023, to: Clerk of the Court Lowthorp v. Mesa Air Group
Incorporated, et al., No. CV-20-00648-PHX-MTL United States
District Court District for the District of Arizona Sandra Day
O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ
85003; with copies to James M. Wilson, Jr., Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP,
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017; and Nina F. Locker
and Charles A. Talpas, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page
Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050. If replies are necessary, they
will be filed and served no later than March 31, 2023.

As provided in the Stipulation, the Escrow Agent may disburse at
the direction of Lead Counsel up to $150,000 from the Settlement
Fund prior to the Effective Date to pay Notice and Administration
Expenses. For any additional Notice and Administration Expenses
above $150,000, the Lead Counsel will obtain Court approval for
payments out of the Escrow Account.

All papers in support of the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and
any application by Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses or
by the Lead Plaintiff for his costs and expenses will be filed and
served no later than Feb. 10, 2023.

All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed and considered to
be in custodia legis of the Court, and will remain subject to the
jurisdiction of the Court until such time as such funds will be
disbursed pursuant to the Stipulation and/or further order(s) of
the Court.

All reasonable expenses incurred in identifying and notifying the
Class Members, as well as administering the Settlement Fund, will
be paid as set forth in the Stipulation. In the event the
settlement is not approved by the Court, or otherwise fails to
become effective, neither the Lead Plaintiff nor the Lead Counsel
will have any obligation to repay any amounts incurred or disbursed
pursuant to the Stipulation.

The Lead Counsel shall, within 60 days of the Order, submit a
notice to the Court with the Claims Administrator's website.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3wm4v4wc from Leagle.com.


META PLATFORMS: Sijelmassi Sues Over Intercepted Browsing Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Sijelmassi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-06619
(N.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2022), is brought seeking relief for all
persons who used Meta's Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger app and
whose private browsing activity and communications were
surreptitiously intercepted, monitored, and recorded by Meta's
in-app internet browsers.

Beginning in April 2021, Apple's iOS 14 update required Meta to
obtain its users' informed consent before tracking their internet
activity on apps and third-party websites. As a result, Meta lost
access to its primary stream of revenue, derived from the user data
it obtained from this tracking. Now, even when users do not consent
to being tracked, Meta tracks Facebook and Instagram users' online
activity and communications with external third-party websites by
injecting JavaScript code into those sites. When a user clicks on a
web link within the Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger app, Meta
automatically directs them to the in-app browser Meta monitors
instead of the user's default browser. Meta does not tell its users
this is happening or explain that they are being tracked.

The user information Meta intercepts, monitors, and records
includes personally identifiable information, private health
details, text entries, and other sensitive confidential facts.
Meta's undisclosed tracking of citizens' browsing activity and
communications violates federal and state wiretap laws and other
laws, entitling the Plaintiff and Class members to damages. The
Plaintiff and Class members also seek injunctive relief and
equitable remedies to stop Meta's undisclosed and nonconsensual
tracking practices, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has had an active Facebook account for several years
and regularly accesses her account using the Facebook App on her
iPhone.

Meta is the owner and operator of several large social media
platforms, including Facebook and Instagram.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordon R. Harlan, Esq.
          HARLAN LAW, PC
          2404 Broadway, 2nd Floor
          San Diego, CA 92102
          Phone: (619) 870-0802
          Facsimile: (619) 870-0815
          Email: jordon@harlanpc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Phone: (513) 345-8291
          Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
          Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com


META PLATFORMS: V.P. Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as V.P., on behalf of her minor child J.P.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Meta
Platforms, Inc., Facebook Holdings, LLC, Facebook Operations LLC,
Facebook Technologies LLC, Instagram LLC, Case No. 22-CIV-03935 was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on Oct. 27, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-06617-YGR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Meta Platforms, Inc. formerly known as: Facebook Inc. --
https://about.facebook.com/meta/ -- is an American multinational
technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kristin A. Linsley, Esq.
          Rosemarie Theresa Ring, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 393-8379
          Email: KLinsley@gibsondunn.com
                 rring@gibsondunn.com


MIDTRONICS INC: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------------
Carmelita Satterwhite, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MIDTRONICS, INC., Case No. 2022LA000947 (Ill.
18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., Oct. 26, 2022), is brought
against the Defendant to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection,
use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the proposed
Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data.

While most establishments and employers use conventional methods
for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks),
the Defendant, upon information and belief, mandated and required
that employees have hand(s) scanned by a biometric timekeeping
device. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or
replaced if stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes
Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that
collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics.

Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees'
biometric data in violation of BIPA. Specifically, the Defendant
has violated and continues to violate BIPA because it did not and,
upon information and belief, continues not to: Properly inform
Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the specific
purpose and length of time for which their hand scan(s) were being
collected, stored, disseminated and used, as required by BIPA;
Provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for
permanently destroying the Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated
individuals' hand scan(s), as required by BIPA; Receive a written
release from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to collect,
store, disseminate or otherwise use their hand scan(s), as required
by BIPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its location in Illinois.

Midtronics, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with places of business
in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MNS LTD: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MNS, LTD. The case is
styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. MNS, LTD. d/b/a ABC Stores, Case No.
1:22-cv-09167 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022).

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

MNS, LTD. doing business as ABC Stores -- http://www.abcstores.com/
-- is a chain of convenience stores based in Honolulu.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONDELEZ INT'L: Claims in Lee Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, C.K. LEE, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC. and MONDELEZ
GLOBAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-1127 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismisses the Plaintiff's claims with
prejudice.

The Defendants move to dismiss the class-action complaint of
Plaintiff Lee for failure to state a claim for relief pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In the alternative, to
the extent that the Complaint survives their 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, they move for an order striking the Plaintiff's class
allegations either in their entirety or, if the Court does not do
so, to strike his allegations brought pursuant to laws other than
the law of New York. The Defendants also move to dismiss on the
grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) with respect to the claims of
non-New York putative class members and that the Plaintiff lacks
standing to seek injunctive relief.

Mondelez manufactures, packages, distributes, advertises, and
markets chocolate products sold under the brand name "Green &
Black": "Green & Black's Organic Dark Chocolate" and "Green &
Black's Pure Dark Chocolate" (the "Products"). Mondelez
International specializes in the manufacture of candy and
chocolate. Mondelez Global, a subsidiary of Mondelez International,
distributes the Products.

The Products include variants that advertise specific percentages
of "cacao" on their front label, such as 60%, 70%, and 85% cacao.
The ingredients list on the back labels, however, does not refer to
cacao. Instead, the list refers to chocolate, chocolate liquor,
cocoa butter, or cocoa. The front labels also announce that the
Products are "made with the finest Trinitario cacao beans" or "fine
Trinitario cacao beans."

Mr. Lee alleges that the Defendants' Products had significantly
less value than was warranted by their representations because they
did not deliver the qualities promised. Those misrepresentations
misled him as to the Products' contents, depriving him of the
benefit of his bargain and injuring him in an amount up to the
purchase price. He further alleges that he would not have been
willing to pay the sum he paid had he known the Product was
mislabeled. In contrast to the Products at issue, Lee also points
to a chocolate bar product from a different chocolate manufacturer
that represents on the front label that the product is made from
"cocoa," not "cacao."

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on Feb. 9, 2022. On April 18,
2022, the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss. On June 27,
2022, the Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss and on
the Defendants' motion for a stay of discovery. It granted the
motion for a stay from the bench.

The Plaintiff brings three claims against the Defendants: (1)
violation of New York General Business Law ("GBL") Section 349 on
behalf the New York class or alternatively on behalf of a
Nationwide Class in conjunction with substantively similar consumer
protection laws of non-New York states and the District of
Columbia; (2) violation of GBL Section 350 on behalf of the New
York class or alternatively on behalf of a Nationwide Class in
conjunction with substantively similar consumer protection laws of
non-New York states and the District of Columbia, and (3) common
law fraud on behalf of a New York class or alternatively on behalf
of a Nationwide Class in conjunction with substantively similar
common law of non-New York states and the District of Columbia.

The Defendants make two arguments for why the Complaint fails to
state a claim for relief. First, they argue that the Plaintiff's
claims are expressly preempted under the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), as amended by the Nutrition Labeling and
Education Act. Second, they argue that the Complaint fails to state
a claim because the product labels are accurate and no reasonable
consumer would be deceived because the products are made with
cacao.

In addition, the Defendants argue that the Court should strike the
Plaintiff's class allegations because consumer purchases are driven
by many individualized factors; that the nationwide class
allegations should be stricken because the Complaint does not plead
an independent cause of action for these laws; that the Plaintiff
lacks standing to seek injunctive relief due to the lack of a
future injury; that there is no personal jurisdiction over them for
the claims of non-New York class members; and that that the Court
should not afford leave to amend the Complaint.

Judge Liman grants the motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims
without leave to amend.

Initially, he opines that the distinction between "cacao" and
"cocoa" falls outside the scope of the preemption clause.
Therefore, even if the Defendants' Products comply with the
"standard of identity" regulations, the Plaintiff's claim would not
be preempted if it does not relate to a subject matter considered
by the FDA. The subject matter of "cacao" versus "cocoa" is one
such subject matter. There is no evidence that subject was
considered by the FDA.

Judge Liman then agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiff does
not allege anything with respect to what a reasonable consumer
might believe as to the word "cacao" and its level of processing.
He says the Complaint contains no allegations that support that a
reasonable consumer would believe that "cacao" is associated with
"unprocessed cacao."

Even assuming that a consumer would understand the reference to
"cacao" to be to the raw ingredient, Judge Liman says the Plaintiff
would have failed to plead falsity.

Judge Liman also finds that the Plaintiff has not adequately
alleged fraud and has not alleged a misrepresentation of fact or
omission. The Plaintiff has failed to allege a misrepresentation of
fact or omission because he has failed to allege that a reasonable
consumer would have associated the word "cacao" with "unprocessed
cacao." He also has not adequately alleged scienter under Rule 9(b)
for a common law fraud claim.

Moreover, Judge Liman opines that the Plaintiff does not have
standing to assert injunctive relief. He says the Plaintiff's
future injury is purely hypothetical and thus does not suffice to
provide standing for injunctive relief. The Plaintiff does not
otherwise allege that he will buy the products again or is
obligated to do so.

Finally, Judge Liman declines to grant leave to amend. He holds
that leave to amend is futile based on the Court's findings on the
"% cacao" label all indicate that no reasonable consumer would be
misled by the statement of "cacao" on the front label to believe
that the product contained "raw cacao" or cacao possessing the
medicinal qualities of raw cacao. Further, any argument regarding
leave to amend has been expressly waived by the Plaintiff by
failing to raise it in his opposition brief.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 19.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrajy3f9 from Leagle.com.


MOTORSPORT.TV DIGITAL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Motorsport.TV
Digital, LLC. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Motorsport.TV
Digital, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09233 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022).

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

Motorsport.tv -- https://motorsport.tv/ -- is a leading video
platform aiming at being the global hub for the different motor
racing and motoring communities around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (917) 796-7437
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com


NAVY FEDERAL: Anderson Suit Removed From State Court to E.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LATOYA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No.
STK-CV-UBC-2022-7941, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Joaquin, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on October 21, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01891-KJM-AC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract,
negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California
Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and
the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

Navy Federal Credit Union is a global credit union headquartered in
Vienna, Virginia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Joshua H. Lerner, Esq.
         WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
         1 Front Street, Ste. 3500
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (628) 235-1124
         Facsimile: (628) 235-1001
         E-mail: joshua.lerner@wilmerhale.com

                  - and -

         Karin Dryhurst, Esq.
         Donna M. Farag, Esq.
         Jennifer Thompson, Esq.
         WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
         1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
         Washington, DC 20006
         Telephone: (202) 663-6000
         Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
         E-mail: karin.dryhurst@wilmerhale.com
                 donna.farag@wilmerhale.com
                 jennifer.thompson@wilmerhale.com

                  - and -

         Urvashi Malhotra, Esq.
         WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
         2600 El Camino Real, Ste. 400
         Palo Alto, CA 94306
         Telephone: (650) 858-6077
         Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
         E-mail: urvashi.malhotra@wilmerhale.com

NCB MANAGEMENT: Keeton Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management
Services Inc. The case is styled as Hannah Keeton, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NCB Management
Services Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01368-NAD (N.D. Ala., Oct. 26,
2022).

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

NCB Management Services Inc. -- https://www.ncbi.com/ -- is a debt
collection agency primarily focused on retail, healthcare, student
loans, and government debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Schoen, Esq.
          2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-6
          Montgomery, AL 36106
          Phone: (334) 395-6611
          Fax: (917) 591-7586
          Email: DSchoen593@aol.com


NEW YORK, NY: Aguilo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of New York,
et al. The case is styled as Roxana Aguilo, Steven Harris,
Christina Gayle, John Pagan, Patricia Taveras, Domingo Bencosme, on
behalf of themselves v. City of New York, New York City Police
Department, Case No. 1:22-cv-09204-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clara R Smit, Esq.
          100 Horizon Center Boulevard
          Hamilton, NJ 08691
          Phone: (732) 843-6600
          Email: crsmitlaw@aol.com


NEWREZ LLC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Cardin Class Suit Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGG T. CARDIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT
MORTGAGE SERVICING, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-03350 (N.D. Ill.),
Judge Franklin U. Valderrama of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants in part and
denies in part Shellpoint's motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint.

Mr. Cardin brings the action against Shellpoint, a mortgage
servicer, asserting that Shellpoint improperly bought and charged
Cardin for property insurance on his home mortgage loan knowing
that Cardin already maintained his own insurance. He asserts a
claim on behalf of himself and members of a putative class for
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (Count I), as well as
individual claims for breach of contract (Count II); violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section
1692 et seq. (Count III); and unjust enrichment (Count IV).

Mr. Cardin owned the property located at 1550 S. Blue Island Ave,
Unit 810, Chicago, Illinois, which was his principal residence.
Having obtained a mortgage secured by the property, he refinanced
the loan in 2014 with Quicken Loans. After the refinancing, Ditech
Financial LLC serviced the loan until November 2019 when
Shellpoint, a mortgage servicer that services mortgage loans
nationwide, "acquired and/or began servicing the subject loan."
Although Cardin was contractually current on the payments when
Shellpoint took over the loan, Shellpoint treated the loan as being
in default.

When Shellpoint bought the forced-place insurance in approximately
April 2020, Cardin was in the process of selling the property. The
improper insurance charges increased the amount of money needed to
pay off Cardin's loan and effectuate a sale. Under mounting
pressure to complete the sale of the property and with Shellpoint's
representations regarding a forthcoming refund, Cardin
"reluctantly" paid the inflated amounts sought in the May, June,
and July 2020 mortgage statements.

A closing for the sale of the property took place on July 21, 2020.
And, after the July closing, Shellpoint erroneously demanded an
additional $4,297.66 for accrued interest on the loan. Under duress
to formally complete the sale of the subject property, Cardin paid
the alleged outstanding interest.

Shellpoint moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Judge Valderrama denies the motion as
to Counts I, II, and III and grants as to Count IV, which is
dismissed without prejudice.

As an initial matter, Judge Valderrama opines that at this stage,
Cardin's allegations that he repeatedly disputed the insurance
charges in writing are sufficient to allege that he notified
Shellpoint of a breach and provided an opportunity to cure, thus
satisfying the notice and cure provision.

As to the breach of contract claim (Count II), Judge Valderrama
holds that Shellpoint cites no authority for the proposition that
refunds like the one it issued after the filing of the complaint
suffice to moot damages that existed at the time the complaint was
filed. Discovery may shed further light on the facts relevant to
this argument, but at this stage, he finds Cardin's breach of
contract claim is not moot for lack of damages.

However, Judge Valderrama agrees with Shellpoint regarding the
unjust enrichment (Count IV). He opines that Cardin's unjust
enrichment claim is only brought in the alternative to the breach
of contract claim, and the Court has denied the motion to dismiss
with respect to the breach of contract count. Accordingly, because
the breach of contract claim survives the motion to dismiss,
Cardin's motion to amend is denied and the unjust enrichment claim
is dismissed without prejudice.

In Count I, Cardin brings a claim on behalf of himself and the
putative class pursuant to the ICFA. Taken together, Judge
Valderrama finds that the allegations in the complaint describe
alleged unfair or deceptive acts that caused Cardin actual damage.
Accordingly, Cardin has sufficiently pled actual damage to state an
ICFA claim.

In Count III, Cardin brings an individual claim for violations of
the FDCPA. Judge Valderrama holds that he must accept Cardin's
well-pleaded facts and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor.
Shellpoint cites no case law establishing that an acquired debt
like the subject is not considered to be in default, nor any case
that treats a mortgage statement which cites a forthcoming due date
as evidence that a loan is considered current. Discovery may shed
further light on the status of the debt in November 2019 and
whether Shellpoint considered it current at that time. But at the
motion to dismiss stage and based on Cardin's allegations, Judge
Valderrama finds the complaint sufficiently states a claim pursuant
to the FDCPA.

Judge Valderrama further finds that Cardin's class claims may fail
at the certification stage, but they survive the present motion to
dismiss. He says it is practical to wait until Cardin moves for
class certification and the parties provide in-depth analysis of
the issues relevant to class certification. In addition, Cardin
sufficiently alleges that he provided proof of insurance and states
his ICFA claim with particularity. Shellpoint cites no case
striking similar class claims, and the only case it does cite is
easily distinguishable because the plaintiff there "did not secure
her own insurance."

Finally, Judge Valderrama opines that Cardin has sufficiently
established standing to bring a claim under the FDCPA. Cardin
actually paid the insurance charges to Shellpoint, and had not
recovered any of that money when he filed the lawsuit. And even if
he has been repaid the full amount of monetary damages, Cardin
alleges that Shellpoint's false credit reporting to the credit
bureaus destroyed his credit score and credit worthiness.

For the foregoing reasons, Shellpoint's motion to dismiss is denied
as to Counts I, II, and III and granted as to Count IV, which is
dismissed without prejudice. The stay of class discovery previously
ordered by the Court is lifted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3wejrhpv from
Leagle.com.


OCEAN CREST SEAFOODS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ocean Crest Seafoods,
Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Ocean Crest Seafoods, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-09198 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022).

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

Ocean Crest Seafoods, Inc. operates as a wholesaler of seafood
products. The Company offers fish, fillets, and seafood products to
supermarkets, restaurants, and retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OSCEOLA CHEESE: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Osceola Cheese
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Osceola Cheese
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09200 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022).

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

Osceola Cheese -- https://osceolacheese.com/ -- is a Cheese shop
established in 1944.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PASHA GROUP: Arreguin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Pasha Group, et
al. case is styled as Ana Rosa Arreguin, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Pasha Group, Does 1-20, Case No.
34-2022-00328927-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct.
26, 2022).

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

The Pasha Group -- https://www.pashagroup.com/ -- operates as an
international logistics and transportation services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 949-379-6250


PAULA DEEN VENTURES: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paula Deen Ventures,
LLC. The case is styled as Denette J. Ligon, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Paula Deen Ventures, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09179 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
26, 2022).

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

Paula Deen Ventures -- https://www.pauladeen.com/ -- operates a
company with interests in food media, restaurants and food
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHYSICIAN'S BUSINESS: Martin Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Physician's Business
Office, Inc. The case is styled as Twila Martin, Joni Davis, on
behalf of herself and her minor child; S. W., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Physician's
Business Office, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00493 (S.D.W. Va., Oct. 27,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Breach
of Contract.

Physician's Business Office --
https://www.physiciansbusinessoffice.com/ -- is a management
services organization which provides administrative practice
support to a wide variety of medical specialties.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark E. Troy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          222 Capitol Street, Suite 200A
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (304) 345-1122
          Fax: (304) 414-5692
          Email: mtroy@forthepeople.com


R&G BRENNER: Lurie Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Lurie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. R&G BRENNER INCOME TAX, LLC, R&G BRENNER TAX CENTERS
INC., SUMMIT CONSULTING INC., APEX PLANNING INC., R&G BRENNER
INCOME TAX CONSULTANTS, BENJAMIN K. BRENNER, and CAROL BRENNER,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06511 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and for other relief.

The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for
any hours that she worked in excess of 40 hours each week. The
Defendants were aware of the hours that Plaintiff worked each shift
but still failed to pay her properly. The Defendants did not
provide the Plaintiff with a complete and accurate wage notice when
she was hired, or at any time thereafter, as required by NYLL, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a tax preparer.

R&G BRENNER operates tax preparation offices in the counties of New
York, Kings, Queens, Bronx, Rockland, Westchester, Nassau, and
Suffolk.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith E. Williams, Esq.
          THE NHG LAW GROUP, P.C.
          4242 Merrick Road
          Massapequa, New York 11758
          Phone: 516.228.5100
          Email: keith@nhglaw.com
                 nhglaw@nhglaw.com


RA SUSHI: Faces Canada Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages for Servers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CORRINE CANADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RA SUSHI HOLDINGS CORP. and RA SUSHI ATLANTA
MIDTOWN CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04226-LMM (N.D. Ga.,
October 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a server at RA Sushi restaurant in
Atlanta, Georgia from approximately January 2020 to April 2020.

RA Sushi Holding Corp. is an operator of a nationwide chain of
restaurants with the name RA Sushi, doing business in Georgia.

RA Sushi Atlanta Midtown Corp. is an operator of a nationwide chain
of restaurants with the name RA Sushi, doing business in Georgia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Arnold J. Lizana, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
         1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
         Atlanta, GA 30361
         Telephone: (404) 207-1559
         Facsimile: (470) 231-0672

                  - and -

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

                  - and -

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

REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Jones Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Time
Resolutions, Inc. The case is styled as Percy Jones, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Real Time
Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-01113-TJM-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Oct.
27, 2022).

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

Real Time Resolutions -- https://www.realtimeresolutions.com/ -- is
a full-service loan servicing and recovery company specializing in
mortgage, auto, student, credit card, and other consumer
loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert T. Yusko, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com


REASONABLE HEALTH: Alexander Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reasonable Health
Coverage LLC. The case is styled as Cathy Alexander, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Reasonable Health
Coverage LLC doing business as: Reasonable Insurance Group, Case
No. 2:22-cv-14364-AMC (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2022).

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

Reasonable Health Coverage LLC doing business as Reasonable
Insurance Group -- https://reasonableinsurancegroup.com/ -- is an
health insurance brokerage, based in Broward County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammad Reza Kazerouni, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (949) 612-9999
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: mike@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          301 E. Bethany Home Road. Ste. C-195
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Email: ryan@kazlg.com


RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Wilson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Recreational
Equipment, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alexander Wilson, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
v. Recreational Equipment, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2022-00328937-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct.
26, 2022).

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

Recreational Equipment, Inc., commonly known as REI --
https://www.rei.com/ -- is an American retail and outdoor
recreation services corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Orlando J. Villalba, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533
          Phone: 310-712-8002
          Email: Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Castic Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services L.P. The case is styled as Cathy Castic, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital
Services L.P., Case No. 3:22-cv-02497-SMY (S.D. Ill., Oct. 27,
2022).

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

Resurgent Capital Services, LP -- https://www.resurgent.com/ --
provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios
for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services L.P. The case is styled as Eve Williams, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital
Services L.P., LVNV Funding LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-03731-TMC
(D.S.C., Oct. 27, 2022).

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

Resurgent Capital Services, LP -- https://www.resurgent.com/ --
provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios
for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dawn Marie McCraw, Esq.
          PRICE LAW GROUP APC
          8245 North 85th Way
          Scottsdale, AZ 85258
          Phone: (818) 600-5585
          Email: dawn@pricelawgroup.com


ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Meehan Sues Over Engagement in Deceptive Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Meehan, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. ROADMASTER DRIVERS SCHOOL OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. and ROADMASTER
DRIVERS SCHOOL, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-04299-JMG (E.D. Pa., Oct.
26, 2022), is brought for damages arising from the Defendants'
violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, breach of warranties and for unjust enrichment, as
a result of the Defendants engagement in a pervasive, deceptive
scheme, whereby Roadmaster induced customers into utilizing
Defendants' services based on deceptive and inaccurate documents
and provided documents to its customers that reflected services
that were not actually provided.

Students, including Plaintiff, enrolled at Roadmaster contracted
for, and expected to receive, the quality CDL training they were
promised in the advertising and marketing Roadmaster disseminated.
Roadmaster marketed and represented that it had the required
teachers, training, protocols, and government certifications to
train and teach students in the manner sufficient to obtain a CDL.

On July 15, 2022, graduates of Roadmaster, including the Plaintiff,
received a letter from various government entities, including
PennDOT, informing them that their CDL licenses were improperly
issued, and that Roadmaster had not complied with governmental
regulations, and that students (like Plaintiff) must retake their
CDL exam or would lose their license. The Defendants breached their
contractual obligations to students, like the Plaintiff, and were
unjustly enriched because students paid for specific services they
never received and were required to spend monies for services that
were not provided. The Defendants failed to provide CDL testing
that complied with governmental regulations. Students such as the
Plaintiff were harmed as a result of the Defendants' actions,
including the loss of income, lost revenue, lost jobs, and other
harm associated with not receiving the services they paid for.

Through this lawsuit the Plaintiff seeks, for himself and Class
members, the Defendants' disgorgement of tuition and fees paid to
it, proportionate to the damages suffered by the Plaintiff and
members of the Class, including the loss of income, lost revenue,
lost jobs, and other harm associated with not receiving the
services they paid for. The Plaintiff also seeks damages relating
to the Defendants' passing off their Commercial Driving License
training program as complete and capable of achieving a valid CDL
license for students who complete the program, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff paid approximately $7,000 in tuition, fees and
various other costs to the Defendants for the training program.

Roadmaster Drivers School, Inc. owns, operates, and manages several
CDL Training Schools across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 735-8600
          Fax: (215) 940-8000
          Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                 jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                 lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Phone: (516) 873-9550
          Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                 mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
                 bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

ROCKET MORTGAGE: Class Certification Decision in Alig Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILLIP ALIG; SARA J. ALIG; ROXANNE SHEA; DANIEL V.
SHEA, Individually and on behalf of a class of persons,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC, f/k/a Quicken Loans
Inc.; AMROCK INC., f/k/a Title Source, Inc., d/b/a Title Source
Inc. of West Virginia, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellants, and
DEWEY V. GUIDA; APPRAISALS UNLIMITED, INC.; RICHARD HYETT,
Defendants. THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, Amicus Supporting Appellant,
Case No. 19-1059 (4th Cir.), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit vacates its order affirming in part and vacating in part
the district court's class certification and summary judgment
order.

The Plaintiffs are a class of all West Virginia citizens who
refinanced a total of 2,769 mortgages with Quicken Loans from 2004
to 2009, for whom Quicken Loans obtained appraisals from the
Defendant appraisal management company Title Source using a request
form that included an estimate of value of the subject property.
The district court certified the proposed class and granted summary
judgment to the Plaintiffs on three claims: unconscionable
inducement under West Virginia Code Section 46A-2-121(a)(1); breach
of contract; and conspiracy. It awarded a total of more than $10.6
million in damages.

Last year, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part
the district court's judgment. It concluded that the Plaintiffs had
standing because all of the class members had paid "for independent
appraisals that they never received." It further concluded that the
"financial harm" involved in paying for a product that was "never
received" was "'a classic and paradigmatic form of injury in
fact.'"

Three months later, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021),
which addressed Article III standing in the context of a
class-action case. Following TransUnion, it is clear that, to
recover damages from Quicken Loans, "every class member must have
Article III standing" "for each claim that they press," requiring
proof that they "suffered concrete harm" from the challenged
conduct.

The Defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing
that the Plaintiffs lack standing under TransUnion. Earlier this
year, the Supreme Court granted the Defendants' petition, vacated
the Fourth Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case "for further
consideration in light of" that case.

The Fourth Circuit ordered supplemental briefing and held oral
argument. Having considered the parties' submissions, it concludes
that the district court should apply TransUnion to the facts of
this case in the first instance. Accordingly, it vacates and
remands for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2s3wtshu from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: William M. Jay -- wjay@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER
LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Deepak Gupta --
deepak@guptawessler.com -- GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C.,
for the Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Helgi C. Walker -- hwalker@gibsondunn.com -- Jesenka
Mrdjenovic -- jmrdjenovic@gibsondunn.com -- Andrew G.I. Kilberg --
akilberg@gibsondunn.com -- Washington, D.C., Theodore J. Boutrous,
Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Los
Angeles, California; Thomas M. Hefferon -- thefferon@goodwinlaw.com
-- Brooks R. Brown -- bbrown@goodwinlaw.com -- Jaime A. Santos --
jsantos@goodwinlaw.com -- Keith Levenberg --
klevenberg@goodwinlaw.com -- Washington, D.C., Edwina B. Clarke --
eclarke@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Boston,
Massachusetts, for Appellants. John W. Barrett --
JBARRETT@BAILEYGLASSER.COM -- Jonathan R. Marshall --
JMARSHALL@BAILEYGLASSER.COM -- Charleston, West Virginia, Patricia
M. Kipnis -- PKIPNIS@BAILEYGLASSER.COM -- BAILEY & GLASSER LLP,
Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Gregory A. Beck -- greg@guptawessler.com
-- Linnet Davis-Stermitz -- linnet@guptawessler.com -- GUPTA
WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Jason E. Causey, James G. Bordas,
Jr., BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
John M. Masslon II -- jmasslon@wlf.org -- Cory L. Andrews --
candrews@wlf.org -- WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, Washington, D.C.,
for Amicus Washington Legal Foundation. Jennifer B. Dickey, Tyler
S. Badgley, UNITED STATES CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, Washington,
D.C.; Matthew A. Fitzgerald -- mfitzgerald@mcguirewoods.com --
McGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Amicus The Chamber of
Commerce of the United States of America.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Claims in Wesley Defective Ranges Suit Trimmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHY WESLEY, ALESIA CHARLES, JOSEPH D'ANDREA, and JO
PEACOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-18629 (D.N.J.), Judge John Michael
Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey:

   a. grants in part and denies in part Samsung's motion to
      dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint or, in the
      alternative, to Strike the Class Allegations; and

   b. denies the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to amend.

The putative class action lawsuit alleges that the Defendant knew,
but failed to disclose, that an oven temperature sensor in some of
its gas and electronic ranges was defective. The Plaintiffs allege
that they purchased Samsung gas and electric ranges from various
authorized resellers, such as BestBuy and Sears.

After purchasing the ranges, the Plaintiffs began to experience
problems with the temperature settings of the ovens and/or stovetop
components of the ranges, as the ovens and/or stovetops would not
maintain the set temperature. They attempted to contact Samsung to
have the ranges repaired, but the repairs were either unsuccessful
or the Plaintiffs were unable to obtain repair services.

The Plaintiffs' ranges all contain an "oven temperature sensor
bearing component model number DG32-00002B," which they allege is
defective and is the cause of the various temperature problems.
They contend that at least 87 Samsung gas and electric range models
contain (or contained) this defective sensor. They further allege
that Samsung knew of, and failed to disclose the defect, and
continues to manufacture and sell ranges with the defective sensor.
Had the Plaintiffs known of the defect, they would not have
purchased their ranges or would have paid a significantly lower
price.

The Plaintiffs filed the action on Dec. 9, 2020, and filed its
First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on March 3, 2021. Samsung moved to
dismiss and on Dec. 3, 2021, the Court granted the motion in part
and afforded the Plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.
Based on an amended scheduling order, the due date for the SAC was
extended to April 5, 2022.

On April 4, 2022, the parties submitted a joint stipulation
indicating that the Plaintiffs intended to file a motion for leave
to amend their complaint to add new plaintiffs and requesting that
the Court extends their SAC deadline until after they could file,
and the Court could decide, the Plaintiffs' planned motion for
leave to amend. The Court did not approve the stipulation.

On April 5, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the SAC. The SAC includes
four Plaintiffs who bring allegations individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated: Kathy Wesley (Florida), Jo Peacock
(Florida), Alesia Charles (California), and Joseph D'Andrea (New
Jersey).

On May 16, 2022, Samsung moved to dismiss the SAC pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative,
moved to strike the class allegations. The Plaintiffs filed their
opposition and cross-motion for leave to file a Third Amended
Complaint ("TAC") on June 21, 2022.

The SAC asserts claims for breach of express warranty and implied
warranty of merchantability on behalf of the New Jersey and Florida
subclasses (Count I and Count II, respectively), and violations of
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claim and a California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim on behalf of the California
subclasses (Count III and Count IV, respectively). The SAC omits
the fraud claim, MMWA claim, most of the state consumer protection
claims, and some of the express and implied warranty claims that
were raised in the FAC.

Samsung first argues that the Plaintiffs' claims should be
dismissed because they have not plausibly alleged a "defect" in
their ranges. It then asserts that their amended allegations do not
support an express warranty claim or an implied warranty claim.
Next, Samsung contends that the Plaintiffs' SAC fails to cure the
Song-Beverly Act claim and California Unfair Competition Law
("UCL") claim. Finally, it argues that even assuming they could
state a viable claim, the class allegations should be stricken
because they fail to plausibly allege a common defect, precluding
certification.

The Plaintiffs seek leave to amend to file a TAC to add four
additional Plaintiffs who propose to assert breach of express and
implied warranty claims under Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
Washington law.

Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged
a defect. He says the Plaintiffs must plausibly assert what is
actually defective about the temperature sensor. Indeed, their
other allegations (from the repair technicians and on-line reviews)
attribute the defect, in whole or in part, to other components.
These other allegations undercut the plausibility of their claim
that it is the sensor that is defective.

Judge Vazquez then dismisses Count I because in addition to failing
to adequately plead a defect, the New Jersey and Florida subclasses
did not sufficiently allege that Samsung was contacted within the
one-year warranty period, and the Florida Plaintiffs also failed to
adequately allege reliance. He finds that because he cannot
determine from the SAC whether the Plaintiffs contacted Samsung
within the one-year warranty period, the breach of express warranty
claims are not sufficiently pled. Lastly, with respect to its
"design defect" argument, he says Samsung's argument does not
provide adequate grounds for dismissal.

Samsung's arguments as to Count II fail as well, Judge Vazquez
opines. Nevertheless, due to the defect ruling, he dismisses this
claim. He holds that the factual allegations that he relied on in
finding that D'Andrea (New Jersey) and Wesley (Florida)
sufficiently alleged unmerchantability remain the same.

Judge Vazquez also dismisses Count III due to his defect ruling,
but otherwise finds that it was sufficiently pled. He opines that
Samsung fails to point to language from the California Supreme
Court which calls the effect of Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., 95
Cal.Rptr.3d 285, 295 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009), into question. It
similarly fails to point to other California Appellate Court
decisions that have questioned Mexia or reached a different
result.

Turning to Samsung's request to dismiss or strike the Plaintiffs'
class allegations, Judge Vazquez opines that because the Plaintiffs
have made a prima facie showing of predominance by referring to a
series of common factual and legal issues arising out of Samsung's
conduct, he declines to strike the allegations on these grounds.
For similar reasons, because a determination as to whether the
class definition encompasses persons who have no viable cause of
action should be made with the benefit of a full record, he
declines to strike the allegations on these grounds as well.
Accordingly, Samsung's motion to strike the class action
allegations is denied as premature.

Finally, in light of the Court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' SAC
for failure to plausibly plead a defect, Judge Vazquez denies the
Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to amend as futile.
Nevertheless, because Rule 16(b)(4) and Rule 15(a)(2) are otherwise
satisfied, if they can cure the defect allegations, the Plaintiffs
may include the proposed new plaintiffs in the amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs have 30 days to file another amended complaint, if
it so chooses, consistent with Judge Vazquez's Opinion. If they
fail to file a third amended complaint, the dismissal will be with
prejudice. This is the last time that the Court will grant their
leave to amend. An appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/47p53tyw from Leagle.com.


SHORTBOXED LLC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shortboxed LLC. The
case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Shortboxed LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09188
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022).

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

Shortboxed -- https://shortboxed.com/ -- is an application to
discover, buy, and sell collectible comic books.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIX FLAGS: Mack Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Six Flags
Entertainment Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Danielle
Mack, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Six
Flags Entertainment Corporation, Six Flags Great Adventure, LLC,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06292-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., Oct. 26, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor Litigation.

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation is an American amusement park
corporation, headquartered in Arlington, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Justin Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          Twining Office Center, Suite 211
          715 Twining Road
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Phone: (215) 884-2491
          Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


STARRY GROUP: Kinard Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE KINARD and ISAIAS HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STARRY GROUP HOLDINGS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 653970/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., October 24,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
New York Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to give the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees advance written notice
of their termination because of a mass layoff or plant closing,
which was effectuated by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, all back pay, benefits or the
value thereof, and penalties available to them under the N.Y. WARN
Act.

Starry Group Holdings, Inc. is a fixed wireless broadband Internet
service provider based in Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
         675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
         Telephone: (718) 669-0714
         E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com

STATE FARM: M.D. Georgia Dismisses Cudd Suit Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Clay D. Land of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia, Columbus Division, grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case, JARRETT CUDD, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-CV-217 (CDL)
(M.D. Ga.).

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant breached its insurance contract with him when it
initially evaluated the actual cash value of his covered total loss
vehicle using a formula that underestimates that value. The
disputed controversy is whether the Defendant breached its
insurance contract with the Plaintiff because the method it used to
evaluate the amount to which he was entitled was flawed.

State Farm insured Cudd under a standard insurance policy that
provided coverage for damage to an insured vehicle. That policy
provides State Farm with an option when presented with an insured
claim. It may pay either the repair cost minus any applicable
deductible or the actual cash value of the covered vehicle minus
any applicable deductible. The policy does not define "actual cash
value." Instead, it contemplates that the parties will negotiate an
agreement as to that amount.

Mr. Cudd alleges that State Farm handled his claim consistent with
its normal pattern and practice as follows. If State Farm
determines that the vehicle's repair cost would exceed its value,
State Farm declares the vehicle a "total loss" and pursues the
actual cash value option. To calculate a totaled vehicle's actual
cash value, State Farm relies on a report prepared by a third-party
vendor, Audatex.

State Farm declared Cudd's vehicle a total loss in May 2021.
Audatex compared Cudd's vehicle to four comparable vehicles for
sale. For each comparable vehicle, Audatex reduced its advertised
price by the typical negotiation deduction, which resulted in an
adjusted price that was 8% or 9% lower than the asking price and
which Cudd alleges reduced his "ultimate payment from State Farm by
$670.25."

Mr. Cudd then filed this action without notifying State Farm that
he disagreed with State Farm's calculation of the actual cash value
of his vehicle, without any attempt to reach an agreement as to the
actual cash value, and without providing State Farm with an
opportunity to request an appraisal. After Cudd filed the present
action, State Farm requested that they pursue the appraisal process
provided in the policy, but Cudd refused.

Mr. Cudd claims that State Farm breached the insurance contract and
was unjustly enriched by applying the "negotiation deduction." On
behalf of himself and other putative class members, he seeks
monetary damages, a declaration that the "typical" negotiation
deduction violates the policy and a Georgia insurance regulation,
and attorneys' fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. Section 13-6-11.

Judge Land explains that it is undisputed that Cudd failed to
allege the following in his complaint: that he notified State Farm
that he disagreed with its actual cash value calculation, that he
requested an appraisal before initiating this action, and that he
provided State Farm with a meaningful opportunity to invoke the
policy's appraisal process. It also appears undisputed that Cudd
could not have made these allegations in good faith because he
failed to do any of these things, and in fact, after he filed this
action, he refused State Farm's request that they pursue the
appraisal process as provided for in the policy.

The question for Judge Land is whether providing State Farm with a
meaningful opportunity to invoke the appraisal process before
filing suit is a condition precedent to filing the action. He finds
that the plain and unambiguous language in the parties' contract
clearly indicates that it is. An insurance policy is a contract.

Judge Land concludes that although the systematic undervaluation of
insureds' claims could under certain circumstances constitute a
breach of the insurance contract, the Plaintiff's claim ignores
another provision of the policy which provides that either party
will have the right to submit any dispute as to the actual cash
value of a covered loss to an appraisal process. Because this
provision is a condition precedent for payment of a disputed
covered loss and because the Plaintiff failed to give the Defendant
the opportunity to submit this claim to an appraisal process, the
Plaintiff's claims are premature. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's
complaint must be dismissed.

Judge Land grants State Farm's motion to dismiss and dismisses the
action in its entirety without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdfs37ry from Leagle.com.


SWANK AUGUSTA: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Swank Augusta,
LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. The Swank Augusta, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-09166 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022).

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

The Swank -- https://www.shopswankco.com/ -- is a clothing and gift
boutique.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


T. ROWE PRICE: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Voice Prints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Moore, Jr. & Cecelia Lahr, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. T. ROWE PRICE RETIREMENT PLAN
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01673-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal., Oct. 27,
2022), is brought against the Defendant to put an end to its
unlawful use, examination, and recording of the Plaintiffs' and
putative Class members' biometric voice prints without express
written consent.

The Defendant utilizes a system that enables it to examine the
voice of anyone that calls it to determine the truth or falsity of
the callers' statements. The software combines audio, voice, and
artificial intelligence technologies to compare the callers' voices
to a comprehensive database of recordings and metrics. The system
the Defendant uses allows it to authenticate or refute the true
identity of callers, among other things. The system contains voice
recognition software that creates a biometric voice print of each
caller. The system then allows Defendant to analyze the callers'
voice prints to determine the truth or falsity of their statements.
The Defendant does this for anyone that calls it, including
Plaintiffs and Class members. The Defendant does not obtain
"express written consent" from any callers before examining and
analyzing their voices.

Recognizing the need to protect its residents from situations like
these, California enacted the California Invasion of Privacy Act,
to regulate entities that examine or record California residents'
voice prints or voice stress patterns without obtaining the
residents' express written consent first. Despite this law,
Defendant disregards California residents' statutorily protected
privacy rights and unlawfully examines or records their voices in
violation of CIPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs have called the Defendant and spoke with
representatives on the telephone.

The Defendant is a corporation formed in Maryland with its
principal place of business located in Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: 866-219-3343
          Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com

              - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 222-7429
          Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tennessee Valley
Pecan Company, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tennessee
Valley Pecan Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09244 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
27, 2022).

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

Tennessee Valley Pecan Company -- https://tnvalleypecan.com/ --
offers gourmet pecans, Bushytail Coffee, and gifts perfect for any
occasion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


THIRD EYE COMICS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Third Eye Comics,
Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Third Eye Comics, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-09246 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022).

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

Third Eye Comics -- https://thirdeyecomics.com/ -- is the friendly
neighborhood comic shops for Comics, Records, Games, Toys, and more
in the Maryland, DC & Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


THREE SISTER'S: Fails to Properly Pay Dancers, King Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASTORIA KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THREE SISTER'S ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and
NIANNA WRIGHT, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04235-AT (N.D. Ga.,
October 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a dancer at Gentlemen's Club in
Atlanta, Georgia from 2018 until November of 2021.

Three Sister's Entertainment, Inc. is an owner and operator of an
adult entertainment facility named Gentlemen's Club, located in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Matthew W. Herrington, Esq.
         DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN
         101 Marietta Street, Suite 2650
         Atlanta, GA 30303
         Telephone: (404) 979-3150
         E-mail: matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com

                  - and -

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

THRIVING BRANDS: Soldevilla Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dianne Soldevilla, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Thriving Brands, LLC, Henkel
Corporation, Case No. 0:21-cv-62573 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut on Oct. 26, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01362-OAW to the
proceeding.

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

Thriving Brands -- https://thriving-brands.com/ -- is a consumer
products company focused on the development and rejuvenation of
consumer brands across the globe.[BN]

TOMMY HILFIGER: Wiretaps Electronic Communications, Licea Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOMMY HILFIGER U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2022-00042365-CU-MT-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., October
24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, Tommy Hilfiger secretly wiretaps the
private conversations of everyone who communicates through the chat
feature at www.tommy.com and allows third party to eavesdrop on
such communications in real time and during transmission to harvest
data for financial gain. Tommy Hilfiger does not obtain visitors'
consent to either the wiretapping or the eavesdropping, says the
suit.

Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc. is the owner and operator of the
website, www.tommy.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
         Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
         PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
         4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Telephone: (949) 706-6464
         Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
         E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                 vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com

TRAVEL GUARD: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Bid Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMIKA MILLER and JULIANNE
CHUANROONG, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those
similarly situated, v. TRAVEL GUARD GROUP, INC., AIG TRAVEL, INC.,
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. (d/b/a/AIG), and NATIONAL UNION
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., Case No.
3:21-cv-09751-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate to an
extension of the schedule for the Plaintiffs' class certification
motion.

The Plaintiffs have been seeking discovery from Defendants since
serving requests for production on March 21, 2022, and sending
initial drafts of a proposed protective order and ESI order on
March 17, 2022.

After months of negotiation, the ESI order was finally entered
August 3, 2022, and Plaintiffs received some basic ESI information
on August 12, 2022.

The parties have participated in multiple conferences and email
exchanges regarding Defendants' discovery responses and have had
certain disputes resolved by Magistrate Judge Spero. The parties
are working to resolve technical issues with ESI searches and, once
those search terms are finalized, the parties expect ESI document
discovery to be voluminous in this case.

To date, Defendants have made three document productions (on August
19, 2022, September 26, 2022, and October 21, 2022), and anticipate
making additional rolling productions over the next three months.
Multiple depositions will then need to occur and expert reports
will need to be prepared. The parties do not believe all of these
tasks can be completed pursuant to the existing schedule.

In addition, the Plaintiffs' counsel have a class certification
motion in another (longer pending) case that is due February 10,
2023, and do not have the resources to properly prepare both
motions at the same time. The existing class certification briefing
schedule also does not allow sufficient time for certain expert
discovery to occur in conjunction with class certification
briefing.

The Defendant offers travel insurance plans.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NDrN73 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Rajiv Thairani, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  rajiv@gutridesafier.com

                - and -

          Stephen M. Raab, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          305 Broadway, 7 th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090 x109
          E-mail: stephen@gutridesafier.com

The Defendant is represented by

          Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
          Eric A. Ormsby, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          2 Embarcadero Center, 28th FL
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: mpowers@omm.com
                  eormsby@omm.com

TRINET HR: Huang, et al., Win Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHIQIONG HUANG, et al., v.
TRINET HR III, INC., et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-02293-VMC-TGW (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernadez-Covington entered an
order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:

      "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
      members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
      TriNet IV Plan, at any time between September 29, 2014
      through the date of judgment;"

   2. appointing Plaintiffs Shiqiong Huang, Chris R. Stokowski,
      Everett Uhl, and Mark J. Hearon as lead Plaintiffs
      and class representatives;

   3. dismissing Plaintiff Mary Patterson's claims without
      prejudice;

   4. appointing Capozzi Adler, P.C., as class counsel; and

   5. granting the Joint Motion for a Stay.

The Court says that the TriNet IV Plaintiffs have satisfied all of
Rule 23's requirements with respect to the TriNet IV Plan.

According to Plaintiffs, the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to adequately review the Plans' investment
portfolio to ensure that each investment option was prudent,
maintained certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of
identical or materially similar investment options with lower costs
and/or better performance histories, and failed to control the
Plans' recordkeeping expenses.

TriNet is an American cloud-based professional employer
organization.

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

TRUE NORTH: Mullins Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Zack Mullins, Alex Wright, Mya Lynn Tinch, Amanda Delehanty,
Michael Delehanty, Delvin Graham, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly-situated v. TRUE NORTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, TRUE NORTH
HOLDINGS, INC. Case No. 1:22-cv-01932 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 27, 2022),
is brought for the recovery of unpaid minimum overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act as a result of the Defendants' systematic failure to
pay Plaintiffs the proper overtime rate.

The Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Throughout the Plaintiffs' employment, the Defendants has failed to
pay her the proper overtime rate when she worked greater than 40
hours a week. the Defendants failed to pay Wright the proper
overtime rate by excluding the shift premium it paid her in the
calculation of overtime, thus basing the overtime rate paid to
Wright on her predetermined hourly rate, rather on the regular
rate. As a result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs
the proper overtime rate, the Plaintiffs has suffered damages, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are former and current employees of the Defendants.

True North is a fuel and convenience retailer with stores located
throughout Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chris Wido, Esq.
          SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY
          25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200
          Beachwood, Ohio 44122
          Phone: (216) 291-4744
          Fax: (216) 291-5744
          Email: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com


UNITED STATES: Bid to Amend Judgment in Tanner-Brown Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEATRICE TANNER-BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs v. DEBRA
HAALAND, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 21-565 (RC) (D.D.C.), Judge Rudolph Contreras of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denies the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and denies as moot
their Motion for Leave to File Class Action Motion.

Plaintiffs Leatrice Tanner-Brown and the Harvest Institute Freedman
Federation, LLC ("HIFF") filed this putative class action against
Defendants Debra Haaland, the Secretary of the United States
Department of the Interior ("Interior Department"), and Bryan Todd
Newland, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Interior
Department, in their official capacities, seeking an accounting
relating to alleged breaches of fiduciary duties concerning land
allotted to the minor children of former slaves of Native American
tribes.

In 1898, the United States enacted The Curtis Act, 30 Stat. 495,
which allotted the land of the Five Civilized Tribes (i.e., the
Seminole, Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, and Chickasaw Tribes). On May
27, 1908, the United States enacted the law that is central to this
case. Section 1 of the 1908 Act removed all restrictions on land
allotted to certain members of the Tribes, including allottees
enrolled "as freedmen."

The Plaintiffs argue that the 1908 Act did not remove restrictions
from land allotted to minors. The heart of their claim lies with
Section 6 of the 1908 Act. Their claim is premised on their
argument that Section 6 imposed a specific fiduciary duty on the
Secretary of the Interior to account for any royalties derived from
leases on land allotted to minor Freedmen.

On Sept. 15, 2021, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss,
arguing that, among other things, the Plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing. The Court held that the Plaintiffs lacked standing
because they failed to allege a concrete, particularized injury
fairly traceable to the Secretary's action.

On Aug. 5, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment that is at issue. Through this motion, they seek to
clarify their alleged injury. According to them, the injury that
gives rise to their standing is not the Secretary's "alleged
mismanagement of the trust," but her failure to provide the
requested accounting. Additionally, because the Plaintiffs failed
to move to certify their class within the required time period,
they have also filed a Motion for Leave to File a Class Action
Motion.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should alter or amend its
judgment because it ignored settled principles of trust law in its
July 8, 2022, dismissal order. Specifically, they contend that they
cannot assert an injury sufficient to establish standing because a
trust beneficiary must first receive an accounting before
determining whether a trust has been mismanaged. They also assert
that trust beneficiaries are entitled to an accounting regardless
of whether an injury has been shown. Accordingly, they argue that
the Court's July 8, 2022, order must be altered or amended to avoid
manifest injustice.

Judge Contreras rejects these arguments because the Plaintiffs fail
to show that the 1908 Act creates a trust relationship between them
and the Secretary of the Interior. Section 6 does not impose a duty
on the Secretary of the Interior to provide minor allottees with an
accounting, for at least two reasons. First, the language of the
statute suggests that the Secretary's duties are discretionary.
Second, even if the statute imposes an affirmative obligation on
the Secretary to oversee the minor allottees in some capacity, it
does not create a trust relationship.

The 1908 Act makes no reference to any "trust" or "beneficiary,"
but instead refers to "guardians or curators" of the minors'
estates. If Congress wishes to create a trust relationship between
the Secretary and Indian tribes and/or their members, it certainly
knows how to do so. Because the Plaintiffs "cannot identify a
specific, applicable, trust-creating statute or regulation that the
Government violated," their theory of injury must fail.

For these reasons, Judge Contreras denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Alter or Amend Judgment. Because the Court has issued a final
judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims, he also denies as moot the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Class Action Motion.  An order
consistent with his Memorandum Opinion is separately and
contemporaneously issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3se3e8 from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Walker's First Amended Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN ERIC WALKER, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, And All Actors, Agents and
Elected Officials Thereof, and Does 1 through 100, Respectively,
Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-31-DMS-AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M.
Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California dismisses Walker's First Amended Complaint with
prejudice.

On Oct. 17, 2022, Walker filed a "Request to Reopen Case Pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60" and a "Request to
File Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief;
Breach of Contract; Facial Challenge to Unconstitutional Laws." The
Court construes these requests as a motion to reopen his case and a
motion to file an amended complaint, respectively. Walker also
submitted an "Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief; Breach of Contract; General Challenge to Unconstitutional
Laws; Request for Class Action Certification" as part of his motion
to file an amended complaint.

Mr. Walker's motions to reopen his case and bring an amended
complaint rely on the Supreme Court's recent decision in New York
State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022).
Based on Bruen, he requests declaratory judgment, injunctive
relief, and class certification. The Court accepts the FAC, as
filed as part of Walker's motion.

The Plaintiff is a non-prisoner proceeding pro se. On Jan. 6, 2020,
he filed a Complaint against the United States, State of
California, "And All Actors, Agents, and Elected Officials Thereof;
And Does 1 Through 100" and a motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis.
The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in In Forma
Pauperis and dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim.

On May 18, 2020, the Plaintiff submitted a motion for
reconsideration of summary dismissal of the Complaint, which the
Court denied. He appealed the Court's denial, and on July 19, 2021,
the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Court.

The matter presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's FAC, which
contains the same or substantially similar allegations as those he
had brought in his original Complaint. As an initial matter,
considering the Plaintiff's IFP status, Judge Sabraw conducts a sua
sponte screening of the FAC, per 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2).

In the FAC, the Plaintiff alleges violations of his rights under
the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, and breaches of purported
contracts implied by the same amendments and constitutional oaths
taken by various government officials. He describes himself as a
"free, law-abiding, ordinary, tax-paying citizen of the State of
California and United States of America," who "does not currently
own a firearm (weapon), but seeks to acquire a weapon to keep and
bear for in-home and personal self-defense and security, and other
lawful purposes of personal safety."

The Plaintiff continues, "but for California's and the Federal
Governments' encroachments and chilling restrictions on weapons and
his reasonable fear of criminal prosecution and penalties for
exercising his fundamental right to self-security and safety," he
would "immediately acquire and continuously possess a weapon for
lawful purposes, including in-home personal security, personal
safety, and self-defense." The Plaintiff seeks to represent a "very
large class of citizens (approximately 330 million people) who are
subject to the same encroachments, infringements, penalties, and
chilling restrictions alleged."

Judge Sabraw holds that the crux of the Plaintiff's FAC has not
changed. The Plaintiff claims that state and federal governments
improperly deny his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment
because of his status as a felon and that convicted felons who
abide by the law post-conviction have the right to possess
firearms. The Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court have both
recognized the validity of laws curtailing the right of a felon to
possess firearms and Bruen has not changed the result.

Consequently, the FAC is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to
state a claim, and the Plaintiff's requests for declaratory
judgment, class certification, and injunctive relief are denied as
moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2hx8eu4d from Leagle.com.


VILLAGE SUPER MARKET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mendez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
YOE RODRIGUEZ-MENDEZ; and STEVEN RAMOS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VILLAGE SUPER
MARKET, INC. d/b/a SHOPRITE, d/b/a SHOPRITE OF GALLOWAY, d/b/a
VILLAGE SHOPRITE 473, d/b/a SHOPRITE 247, d/b/a STIRLING SHOPRITE
443; VILLAGE SUPER MARKET OF NY LLC d/b/a SHOPRITE OF BRUCKNER
BLVD; VILLAGE SUPER MARKET OF NJ L P, d/b/a SHOPRITE; SHOPRITE
SUPERMARKETS, INC. d/b/a SHOPRITE, d/b/a SHOPRITE 26, d/b/a
SHOPRITE 225, d/b/a SHOPRITE OF ENGLISH CREEK, d/b/a SHOPRITE 191,
d/b/a SHOPRITE OF HILLSBOROUGH, d/b/a SHOPRITE 296, d/b/a SHOPRITE
OF MILLBURN, d/b/a SHOPRITE OF OLD BRIDGE 200, d/b/a SHOPRITE 435;
WAKEFERN FOOD CORP. d/b/a SHOPRITE UNION, d/b/a SHOPRITE #643,
d/b/a SHOPRITE SPRINGFIELD 294; VSM GOURMET LLC d/b/a GOURMET
GARAGE; and VSM NY HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a FAIRWAY MARKET OF 74TH
STREET, d/b/a FAIRWAY MARKET OF 86TH STEET, d/b/a FAIRWAY MARKET OF
CHELSEA, d/b/a FAIRWAY MARKET OF KIPS BAY, d/b/a FAIRWAY MARKET OF
PELHAM, Defendants, Case No. 531455/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty.,
Oct. 28, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiffs and class members proper wages.

Plaintiff Mendez was employed by the Defendants as meat department
clerk while Plaintiff Ramos was employed as service clerk.

VILLAGE SUPER MARKET, INC. owns and operates supermarkets. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides prepared food, natural
and organic food, seafood products, bakery products, and pharmacy
services. Village Super Market serves customers in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WEDRIVEU INC: Bids for Judgment on Pleadings in Chatman Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PRECIOUS CHATMAN, Plaintiff v. WEDRIVEU, INC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-04849-WHO, No. 3:22-cv-04850-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California:

   a. grants in part Chatman's Motion to Remand
      Case No. 3:22-CV-04850 to state court;

   b. grants WeDriveU's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in
      the PAGA case; and

   c. grants WeDriveU's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in
      Case no. 3:22-CV-04849.

Ms. Chatman works for WeDriveU, a shuttle transportation service
based in the Bay Area. She brought a putative class action and a
claim arising under California's Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") in state court, alleging WeDriveU violated various
California state workplace laws. She asserts that WeDriveU failed
to pay proper overtime, meal period, and sick leave. She also
argues WeDriveU engaged in unfair business practices and failed to
pay minimum wage, provide required rest periods, provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and reimburse employees for business
expenses. These violations, she says, also give rise to her PAGA
cause of action.

Currently pending are Chatman's Motion to Remand case No.
3:22-CV-04850 ("the PAGA case") to state court; WeDriveU's Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings in the PAGA case; and WeDriveU's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in case no. 3:22-CV-04849
("the class action"). WeDriveU's motion for judgment on the
pleadings in both cases rests on the theory that Section 301 of the
Labor and Management Relations Act ("LMRA") preempts Chatman's
claims pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). That
is correct, as far as it goes, since Chatman also brings claims not
encompassed by the CBA that are not preempted. Chatman opposes
judgment on the pleadings and moves to remand the PAGA suit to
state court.

Ms. Chatman brings her putative class action claims on behalf of
herself and all those similarly situated. She also brings a claim
under PAGA based on the same underlying allegedly unlawful conduct.
While the class complaint seeks remedies for conduct going back to
April 2018, the PAGA case seeks remedies only since Feb. 11, 2021.

WeDriveU removed both cases to federal court, asserting as the
basis for jurisdiction preemption under Section 301 of the LMRA.
The removal notices explained that Chatman is subject to the CBA,
the terms of which preempt many of her claims. Alongside its
motions, WeDriveU filed Requests for Judicial Notice with a copy of
the CBA. Chatman does not mention the CBA in her complaints.

Additionally, and as relevant to these suits, WeDriveU previously
settled class claims for alleged violations of worker protection
laws ("the Davis Settlement"). Unless a class member opted out, the
Davis Settlement waived the rights of all WeDriveU employees to
bring any claim arising before Dec. 22, 2018, related to meal
periods, rest periods, minimum wage, overtime, unreimbursed
business expenses, waiting time penalties, vacation and sick leave
pay, maintenance of employee records, adequacy of wage statements,
PAGA penalties, unfair business practices, and "any other claims
alleged or which could have been alleged based on the facts
alleged." The judicially approved settlement includes the names of
parties that opted out and Chatman is not listed.

As a preliminary matter, WeDriveU requests that Judge Orrick takes
judicial notice of three documents: the CBA, the Davis settlement
documents, and a declaration from the WeDriveU Chief Financial
Officer that also includes Chatman's employee application.

Judge Orrick takes judicial notice of a district court opinion
attached to Chatman's Reply to Motion to Remand, the CBA, and the
Davis Settlement documents, which includes a declaration from Tina
Chiango and the Final Approval of the Davis/Timmins Class Action
Settlement, the district court opinion. Because of the disputes on
WeDriveU's exhibits attached to its Opposition to the Motion to
Remand, and because he cannot determine the veracity of the facts
at this stage without other evidence, Judge Orrick declines to
judicially notice these exhibits.

As an initial matter, Judge Orrick holds that Chatman's rights to
overtime, meal periods, and sick leave wages arise from the CBA and
not from the statute, and so are preempted by LMRA Section 301. He
therefore has jurisdiction over those claims in the class
complaint. Because the PAGA claims rely in part on the preempted
claims, over which he has jurisdiction, Judge Orrick also has
jurisdiction over the PAGA claims.

Judge Orrick then finds that Chatman alleged in her complaint that
she started work with WeDriveU in April 2018, and her name does not
appear on the list of individuals who opted out of the settlement.
Under the plain terms of the settlement, then, Chatman released all
relevant claims arising before Dec. 22, 2018. Her claims in the
purported class action are hence dismissed to the extent that they
arise before Dec. 22, 2018.

Because all of Chatman's claims related to overtime compensation,
including violation of overtime laws as basis for her PAGA suit,
are preempted by LMRA Section 301, Judge Orrick grants WeDriveU's
motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Chatman's overtime
claims. He says because the section 201 claim relies on Chatman's
rights to overtime compensation, it is derivative of her preempted
section 510 claim and is also preempted by LMRA Section 301. The
same is true of the other overtime claims.

For similar reasons, Judge Orrick holds that Chatman's meal period
claims under Labor Code section 226.7 are also preempted by LMRA
Section 301. Because Chatman's meal period claims are preempted by
Section 301, he grants WeDriveU's motion for judgment on the
pleadings as to the meal period claims.

Because all of Chatman's sick leave claims are preempted by LMRA
Section 301, Judge Orrick also grants WeDriveU's motion for
judgment on the pleadings as to those claims. He finds that the
underlying character of these claims rely on Chatman's underlying
right to sick day wages, which itself arises from the rights
conferred upon her by her CBA. For that reason, they are derivative
of her section 246 claim, and therefore also preempted by the
LMRA.

Because Chatman's PAGA claims for civil penalties are, in part,
derivative of her own overtime and meal period and sick leave
claims, and those underlying claims are preempted by LMRA Section
301, the PAGA cause of action is also preempted as to those claims.
Therefore, WeDriveU's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the
PAGA case is granted as to the underlying claims of overtime, meal
periods, and sick leave, and denied to the extent that it sought
judgment based on the other underlying claims.

Leave to amend would be futile because Chatman cannot assert
additional facts that would change his finding. Judge Orrick
dismisses those claims with prejudice. Her other contentions
remain.

Finally, Judge Orrick grants Chatman's Motion to Remand, in part,
and remands the PAGA cause of action and its remaining underlying
claims. He holds that he has supplemental jurisdiction over the
PAGA case to the extent that it relies on non-preempted state law
claims. But retaining jurisdiction would be inappropriate because
he has dismissed all claims over which he has original
jurisdiction. He also has supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state law claims in the purported class action and for
the same reasons, he declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over those claims. He sua sponte remands to state court the
remaining non-preempted, state law claims in the class case.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Orrick grants WeDriveU's motions
for partial judgment on the pleadings and grants in part Chatman's
motion to remand the PAGA case. The remaining claims in both cases
are remanded to the San Mateo Superior Court. Judgment will be
entered accordingly.

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



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***