/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221121.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, November 21, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 226

                            Headlines

1237 FULLERTON LLC: Buxton Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
21ST CENTURY SPIRITS: Blue Ice Vodka Ads Misleading, Sava Says
3M COMPANY: Delaney Suit Removed to S.D. New York
3M COMPANY: Nuoffer Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals
9W HALO: Butt PAGA Class Suit Removed to E.D. California

ABC LEGAL SERVICES: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Hueston Has Leave to Seek Compensatory Damages
ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE: Suit Moved From D. Arizona to N.D. California
AMARIN CORP: Court Consolidates Dang and Dorfman Securities Suits
APPLE INC: Doe BIPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois

ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Wilson Files Suit in S.D. New York
ARM & HAMMER: Misclassifies Framers & Foremen, Bloomer Suit Claims
AUTOZONERS LLC: Duran Suit Remanded to Supreme Court, Bronx County
AVALARA INC: Parekh Balks at $8.4-Bil. Buyout of Vista Equity
BAYER CORPORATION: Hitt Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

BRERA HOLDINGS: Kironmic BioPharma Putative Class Suit Pending
BROADWAY VIVA: Villano Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
BURGER SPOT: Rivas Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
CANCOS TILE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CARDINAL HEALTH: LSP&RF Shareholder Suit Stayed Pending Mediation

CARLOTZ INC: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, Keller Suit Claims
CEREBRAL INC: Cullors Sues Over Illegal Prescribing Practices
CHANTECAILLE BEAUTE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Neal Class Action
CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUES: Cuevas Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

CLEAR SKY LOCAL: Fabricant TCPA Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
COAST DENTAL: Davis TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Maas Class Action Ongoing
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Markson Putative Class Action Dismissed
COVENANT TRANSPORT: Tabizon Putative Class Action Dismissed

CRISIS COLLECTION: District of Nevada Dismisses Miller Class Suit
CVS Pharmacy: Gum & Enamel Repair Can't Cure Gingivitis, Suit Says
DANONE NORTH: Cappalli Sues Over Mislabeled Vanilla Almondmilk
DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Lane Sues Over Defective Products
DOMINION ENERGY: Court Junks Metzler Class Action

EL BUKANITAS: Fails to Pay Server's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
ENVIVA INC: Fagen Sues Over Violation of Securities Laws
FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces Key Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
FORD MOTOR: Vehicles' Mobile App Inoperable, Scriber Suit Claims
GANNETT COMPANY: Faces Buechler Suit Over Data Privacy Violations

GITHUB INC: Sued Over Breach of Contract
GULFPORT ENERGY: Dismissal of Rotunno's 2nd Amended Suit Affirmed
H&M HENNES: Lizama Sues Over Misleading Business Practices
HEIGHTS TOWER: Fails to Pay Construction Workers' OT, Moran Claims
IMMUNOVANT INC: Continues to Defend Putative Securities Class Suit

JUUL LABS: Auburn Enlarged Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing
KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Court Consolidates Karp and Podmore Class Suits
L'OREAL USA: Hair-Straighteners Contain Toxic Chemicals, Suit Says
LASHIFY INC: Adams Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
LE CAT USA: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Vega Alleges

LEPRINO FOODS: Dominguez PAGA Suit Removed to E.D. California
MADCADI INC: Sanchez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MANAGEABILITY: Faces Campbell Suit Over Unpaid Case Managers' OT
MATCH GROUP: Candelore Class Suit Still Stayed
MATCH GROUP: Crutchfield Securities Suit Dismissed

MATCH GROUP: Dismissal of Newman Class Suit Under Appeal
MATCH GROUP: Rubin and Ochoa Shareholder Derivative Suits Stayed
MATTRESS FIRM: Valencia PAGA Suit Removed to N.D. California
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan Report Excluded in 518 Restaurant Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excltuded in Spoke Suit

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in 7-Eleven Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Aldi Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in AMUI Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Animal Land Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Avon Suit

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BAF Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BGI Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Bishara Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BKS Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Boyd Gaming Suit

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BWL Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Camp Grounds
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in CenturyLink
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in CFA Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in DGC Suit

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in DOI Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Dunhill Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in E-Z Mart Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in East Goshen Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Esdacy Case

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Exxon Mobil Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Fairmont Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Fareway Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Fitlife Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in G.E.S. Suit

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Grubhub Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Halcyon Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Hertz Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Home Depot Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Hyman Case

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Intuit Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Jasperson
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in JHI Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Kroger Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Lakeshore Case

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Lanning Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Leeber Cohen Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Lombardo Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Luby's Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in MCI Suit

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Meijer Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in MTA Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in NACS Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in NGA Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Old Jericho

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Parkway Corp Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Photos Etc. Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Pizzabov Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in PLI Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Publix Suit

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in QVC Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Raley Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Rue21 Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Seaway Gas Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in SuperValu Case

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Tabu Salon Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Target Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Verizon Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Wakefern Case
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Westgate Suit

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded Walt Disney Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report in Bi-Lo Suit
MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report in Contrarian Funds Suit
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. 47 West
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Animal Land

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Avon
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Bishara
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. DGC
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Home Depot
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Walt Disney

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Westgate
MDL 2913: Campbell-Savona Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
MDL 2913: Catskill Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
MDL 2913: Causes Youth Health Crisis in N.Y., Charlotte Alleges
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Afton Claims

MDL 2913: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Arkport Central Says
MDL 2913: Faces Deposit Central Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Hancock Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
MDL 2913: Massena Central Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
MDL 2913: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Schuyler Claims

MDL 2913: Stamford Central Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
MDL 2913: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Edmeston Central Says
MDL 2913: Waverly Central Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
MINDBODY INC: $3.5MM in Fees and Costs Awarded in Securities Suit
MINTO DEVELOPMENT: Faces Sica RICO Class Suit Over Loan Rates

MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Hold Objector Helfand in Contempt Denied
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: 9th Circuit Affirms Mulquin Action Dismissal
NELNET SERVICING: Kitzler Suit Transferred to D. Nebraska
NRG ENERGY: Two TCPA Cases Against Direct Energy Pending
O'GARA COACH: Denial of Bid for Arbitration in Towell Suit Affirmed

OHIO: Court Dismisses Remaining Claim in Hairston v. Bowerman
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot
OMNICELL INC: Heard Suit Interim Status Conference Set for Nov. 30
PACIFICORP: Class Action in Oregon Over 2020 Wildfires Ongoing
PACIFICORP: Trial by Jury Demanded in Dietrich Suit

PFIZER INC: Drug Contains Nitrosamine Impurity, Walter Alleges
PFIZER INC: Faces Ellis Suit Over Sale of Contaminated Drugs
SAFEBUILT FLORIDA: Sykes Sues Over Failure to Properly Pay OT
SALLY BEAUTY: Teuscher Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Gutierrez Suit Stayed Pending Consolidation

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Kelechian Suit Removed to C.D. California
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Adams-Gillard's $1.6MM Settlement Has Final Nod
SIMMONS FIRST: Reaches Settlement with Pace Suit Plaintiffs
SIMMONS FIRST: Reaches Settlement with Walkingstick Suit Plaintiffs
SOLAREDGE TECH: Faces Reford Suit Over 2.3% Drop of Stock Shares

STAPLES THE OFFICE: Heightened Doc Protection in Corral Suit OK'd
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Obsolete Telematics in Motor Vehicles
U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE: Cannon Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
UNILEVER UNITED: Dry Shampoo Contains High Benzene, Sims Suit Says
UNITED STATES: C.D. California Dismisses Dinkins Prisoner Suit

UNITED STATES: Dinkins' Habeas Claim Dismissed as Duplicative
UNITED STATES: Mayorkas Appeals Final Judgment in Al Otro Lado Suit
UNITED STATES: North Carolina Court Dismisses Burghart Class Suit
UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO: Class Certification in Cross Suit Reversed
WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Wilkerson's Certification Bid Denied in Part

WISCONSIN: Clayborne's Bid to Certify Case as Class Action Denied
WYNN RESORTS: Ferris Wins Bid to Recuse Magistrate Judge Youchah
YAMHILL COUNTY, OR: Summary Judgment in Eastwood Suit Affirmed
YOUNG LIVING: Objection to Arbitration Denial in Penhall Sustained

                            *********

1237 FULLERTON LLC: Buxton Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sloane Buxton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 1237 Fullerton LLC, The Scion Group
LLC, Case No. 2022CH09018, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Nov. 9, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06269 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

The Scion Group LLC -- https://thesciongroup.com/ -- is a real
estate services partner to higher education institutions,
foundations and private-sector providers of student housing.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


21ST CENTURY SPIRITS: Blue Ice Vodka Ads Misleading, Sava Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO SAVA, ALIN POP, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. 21ST CENTURY SPIRITS, LLC, LEANNA  BARTLETT,
ALEXA COLLINS, SARAH HOUCHENS, METISHA SCHAEFER, NINA SEREBROVA,
SKYLER SIMPSON, KRISTEN STROUT, KATHY PICOS f/k/a KATHY CRUZALEGUI,
JAMIE VILLAMOR, ANNA KATHARINA VON STAEHLE a/k/a ANNA KATHARINA,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06083 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 3, 2022) alleges that the
Defendants illegally promotes Blue Ice products on social media as
"handcrafted," as well as suggesting that there are health benefits
in consuming vodka.

According to the complaint, the Influencers claim "Together we can
stay fit", suggesting that consumption of vodka has benefits like
weight loss. The Defendant Alexa Collins, for example, compares
vodka with an apple, suggesting that vodka is the healthier
alternative. Such claims by 21st Century and the Influencers are
not only misleading, but also untrue and not supported by
scientific evidence, the Plaintiffs contend. Such claims are also
prohibited by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB),
as they are purely deceptive and misleading, the suit says.

21st Century Spirits is a producer and marketer of premium
alcoholic beverages.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
          PRACTUS LLP
          490 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1
          Glen Ellyn IL 60137
          Telephone: (630) 677-6745
          E-mail: Keith.Gibson@practus.com

                - and –

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

                - and –

          Steven E. Young, Esq.
          PRACTUS LLP
          16501 Ventura Blvd, Ste 304
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 641-5001
          E-mail: Steven.Young@practus.com

3M COMPANY: Delaney Suit Removed to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kristen Delaney, Individually and as parent of
A.D., minor child; Sean Delaney, Caulin Delaney, Edward Hanlon,
Tracey Hanlon, individually and as parent of T.H., minor child;
Stephen Murphy, Leslie Pease, Matthew Pease, Laura Pease, Meredith
Pease, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.,
AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Arkema Inc.;
Archroma U.S. Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global
Corporation; Chemdesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals,
Inc.; Clariant Corporation, individually and as successor in
interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; Corteva, Inc.,
individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; DuPont De Nemours
Inc., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; Dynax Corporation; E.I. DuPont De Nemours and
Company, individually and as successor in interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., individually and
as successor in interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; Nation Ford
Chemical Company; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as
successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor in interest
to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; Tyco Fire Products, LP,
individually and as successor in interest to The Ansul Company;
Case No. 158595/2022, was removed from the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on Nov. 8, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-09544 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability.

The 3M Company -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American
multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry,
worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas J. Herten, Esq.
          ARCHER & GREINER, P.C.
          21 Main Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 342-6000
          Fax: (201) 342-6611
          Email: therten@archerlaw.com


3M COMPANY: Nuoffer Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Nuoffer, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.;
KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE; Case No. 2:22-cv-03255-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 23, 2022), is
brought involving highly toxic chemicals which have earned the
designation "the forever chemicals" because they do not breakdown
and their insidious nature allows them to travel through soil and
into groundwater while maintaining their deadly nature for
decades.

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

AFFF is created by mixing fluorine-free hydrocarbon foaming
substances (chemical agents designed for a particular purpose) with
fluorinated surfactants and mixing that with water which creates an
aqueous film, i.e.: Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF"). The
manufacturing processes involved in this action are asserted to
have used fluorocarbon surfactants which are believed to include
PFOS and PFOA (and/or other per fluorinated compounds known as
"PFC" are also believed to be in the mix. PFC's are posited to
break down in PFOS and PFOA).

The Plaintiff joined the US Army and was subsequently assigned to
Fort Polk, LA (2001-2003 and 2005-2007). At all times relevant,
Plaintiff lived/worked on Post at Fort Polk using and drinking the
water. On information and belief, Fort Polk is believed to be
contaminated. In 2014, Nuoffer was diagnosed with testicular cancer
and commenced on going medical treatment inclusive of surgical
intervention via a orchiectomy. As known by Defendants, testicular
cancer is a disease linked to PFAS contamination. Nuoffer did not
discover that PFAS was a cause of the harm until approximately Fall
2020, when he saw internet information, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a member of the U.S. Army, who during his service
was stationed at, inter alia, Fort Polk, a military installation
identified as being contaminated through use of the toxic chemicals
which are the subject of this action.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


9W HALO: Butt PAGA Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WAQAS N. BUTT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 9W HALO WESTERN OPCO, L.P., doing
business as ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 34-2022-00324599, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on November 7, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-02012-AC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to
accurately calculate and pay all wages owed including minimum wage,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide lawful meal periods,
failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay
wages owed during employment, failure to timely pay wages upon
separation of employment, failure to reimburse necessary expenses,
knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage
statement provisions, failure to keep accurate records, and failure
to pay sick leave at the proper rate.

9W Halo Western Opco, LP, doing business as Angelica Textile
Services, is a linen supplier headquartered in Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Alden J. Parker, Esq.
         Christopher S. Alvarez, Esq.
         William T. Okamoto, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400
         Sacramento, CA 95814
         Telephone: (916) 210-0400
         Facsimile: (916) 210-0401
         E-mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com
                 calvarez@fisherphillips.com
                 wokamoto@fisherphillips.com

ABC LEGAL SERVICES: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. ABC LEGAL SERVICES, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV35360 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 7, 2022), is
brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have: failed to provide the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal
periods; failed to provide them with rest periods; failed to pay
them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; failed to
pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the
regular rate of pay; failed to pay them at least minimum wage for
all hours worked; failed to reimburse them for all necessary
business expenses; failed to provide them with accurate written
wage statements; and failed to pay them all of their final wages
following separation of employment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
employee during the applicable statutory period.

The Defendants provide legal process serving and document delivery
services for their customers and clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          Nolan Dilts, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109
          Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                 william@setarehlaw.com
                 nolan@setarehlaw.com


ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Hueston Has Leave to Seek Compensatory Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Holly A. Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, grants the Plaintiff
leave to proceed against the Sheriff in an official capacity for
compensatory damages in the lawsuit captioned DAVID E. HUESTON,
Plaintiff v. SHERIFF OF ALLEN COUNTY, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-CV-173-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind.).

The case stems from the class action Morris v. Sheriff of Allen
County, No. 1:20-CV-34-DRL, 2022 WL 971098 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31,
2022), regarding the conditions of confinement at the Allen County
Jail.

In that case, the Court certified a class of "all persons currently
confined, or who would in the future be confined, in the Allen
County Jail" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for
injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Court found at summary judgment that certain conditions of
confinement at the jail violated the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution: "The overcrowding problem at the
jail--which in turn has spawned an increased risk of violence,
unsanitary and dangerous conditions in cells, insufficient
recreation, and classification difficulties--has deprived this
class of inmates 'the minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities.'" It also entered a permanent injunction to address
the overcrowding, lack of sufficient staffing and recreation, and
inadequate supervision of prisoners and continues to monitor the
remediation of the unconstitutional conditions.

Mr. Hueston filed a complaint seeking damages for being detained
starting April 27, 2021, in the unconstitutional conditions of
confinement identified in Morris. However, he did not allege how
the conditions affected him personally; without an injury, he did
not have a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He was
given the opportunity to file an amended complaint to identify any
potential injury he may have suffered from the jail's conditions.
He has done so, Judge Brady notes.

Mr. Hueston's amended complaint identifies three types of injuries
he says he suffered at the Allen County Jail: (1) the overcrowding
and understaffing led to physical assaults; (2) the lack of
recreation and exercise caused his health to deteriorate; and (3)
the jail's response to COVID-19 was deficient.

Judge Brady finds that Hueston plausibly alleges that the
overcrowding and understaffing problems at the jail were widespread
and well known. Although there is no indication that this specific
threat to Hueston from his cellmate was known to the Sheriff, it is
reasonable to infer that this type of violence is an obvious
consequence of these crowded and understaffed conditions.

Judge Brady notes that it remains to be seen whether the Sheriff or
other policymakers took reasonable measures to abate the
overcrowding and understaffing issues. But at this point, Hueston
has plausibly alleged that the conflict he experienced with his
cellmate was an obvious consequence of the overcrowding and
understaffing and therefore may proceed on a Fourteenth Amendment
claim for failure to protect.

Mr. Hueston plausibly alleges the overcrowded conditions at the
jail resulted in a lack of recreation, which in turn caused the
alleged deterioration of his health, Judge Brady finds. Thus,
Hueston may proceed on a Fourteenth Amendment claim for a denial of
reasonable exercise opportunities.

Finally, Hueston includes allegations relating to his contracting
COVID-19, but these allegations do not state a claim, Judge Brady
notes. Hueston alleges that he did not receive any treatment in
those 14 days or for weeks afterwards, despite having a severe case
of COVID-19.

Judge Brady opines that Sheriff David Gladieux cannot be held
responsible in his individual capacity for the independent actions
of his subordinates, who allegedly did not respond appropriately to
Hueston's medical need. Judge Brady also holds, among other things,
that singling out one aspect of the jail's COVID-19 response does
not plausibly allege the jail's overall response to COVID-19 was
objectively unreasonable.

As a final matter, the Court notes that Hueston names as a
defendant both the Sheriff of Allen County, Indiana, and David
Gladieux. It is unclear whether he intended to sue them as two
separate defendants, but for clarity the Court will dismiss David
Gladiuex as a Defendant but keep the Sheriff of Allen County in an
official capacity. This case does not state any individual capacity
claims against David Gladieux.

A claim against David Gladieux in his official capacity is the same
as a suit against the Sheriff's Office, Judge Brady explains.
Therefore, this case will proceed against the Sheriff of Allen
County only. However, a municipality is immune from punitive
damages, so Hueston is limited to recovering compensatory damages.

For these reasons, the Court:

   (1) grants David E. Hueston leave to proceed against the
       Sheriff of Allen County in an official capacity for
       compensatory damages for unconstitutionally crowded and
       understaffed conditions at the Allen County Jail from
       April 27, 2021, through June 2022, resulting in violence
       against him in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;

   (2) grants David E. Hueston leave to proceed against the
       Sheriff of Allen County in an official capacity for
       compensatory damages for unconstitutionally crowded and
       understaffed conditions at the Allen County Jail from
       April 27, 2021, through June 2022, resulting in a lack of
       recreation that harmed his health in violation of the
       Fourteenth Amendment;

   (3) dismisses all other claims;

   (4) dismisses David Gladiuex;

   (5) directs the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(d), to
       request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the
       United States Marshals Service to use any lawful means to
       locate and serve process on) the Sheriff of Allen County
       at the Allen County Jail, with a copy of this order and
       the complaint;

   (6) orders the Allen County Jail to provide the full name,
       date of birth, and last known home address of any
       defendant who does not waive service if it has such
       information; and

   (7) orders, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g)(2), the Sheriff
       of Allen County to respond, as provided for in the Federal
       Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only
       to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted
       leave to proceed in this screening order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Oct. 27,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ewutcy6a from
Leagle.com.


ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE: Suit Moved From D. Arizona to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled In Re: Subpoena to Alliance Healthcare
Partners, LLC, Case No. MC-22-00033-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz.), Judge
Dominic W. Lanza of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona:

   (1) grants in part Intuitive Surgical, Inc.'s motion to compel
       a non-party, Alliance Healthcare Partners, LLC, to comply
       with a subpoena or, in the alternative, to transfer the
       enforcement dispute to the Northern District of
       California; and

   (2) directs the Clerk of Court to transfer this matter to the
       U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
       California.

The matter arises out of a proposed class action lawsuit that
Plaintiff Larkin Community Hospital filed against Intuitive in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Intuitive is surgical robotics company that manufactures and
markets technology for minimally invasive surgeries, including the
"EndoWrist." Currently, it sets "use limits" for the EndoWrist of
about ten uses. According to Intuitive, modifying the EndoWrist to
extend its use limits requires Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
clearance pursuant to Section 510(k) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act ("510(k) clearance"). To enforce the use limits, Intuitive
includes a memory chip (i.e., a "use counter") in the EndoWrists to
disable the instruments when they reach their validated number of
uses and enters into service agreements with purchasers and lessees
that prohibit the customers from allowing unauthorized third
parties to service EndoWrists. In other words, the service
agreements prevent "independent robot repair companies" ("IRRCs")
from extending the life of an EndoWrist by disabling its use
counter.

On May 20, 2021, Larkin filed a complaint against Intuitive in the
Northern District of California, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, alleging various antitrust claims (Larkin Cmty.
Hosp. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 21-CV-03825-VC (N.D. Cal.).
In broad strokes, Larkin alleges that the EndoWrist use limits and
the contractual provisions that prevent service by IRRCs violate
federal antitrust laws.

Larkin's lawsuit is one of several actions related to the EndoWrist
use limits. Two other antitrust class actions on behalf of
Intuitive customers are pending in the Northern District of
California: Franciscan All. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No.
21-cv-05198-VC (N.D. Cal.), and Kaleida Health v. Intuitive
Surgical, Inc., No. 21-cv-05266-VC (N.D. Cal.).

On Aug. 25, 2021, the litigation underlying the pending motion (No.
21-cv-03825-VC) was consolidated with Franciscan Alliance and
Kaleida Health. There is also a pending antitrust action brought by
one of Intuitive's purported competitors in the Northern District
of California, Surgical Instrument Service Company, Inc. v.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-03496 (N.D. Cal.), which is
related to the underlying litigation. Two other antitrust actions
related to the EndoWrist use limits are pending in district courts
in Florida: Restore Robotics LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No.
5:19-cv-55-TKW-MJF, in the Northern District of Florida, and
Rebotix Repair LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No.
8:20-cv-02274-VMC-TGW, in the Middle District of Florida.

The Restore litigation, No. 5:19-cv-55-TKW-MJF (N.D. Fla. 2022), is
particularly relevant to the parties' arguments here. In that case,
Restore, which is an IRRC that offers contract services in the
surgical robotics aftermarket, alleges Intuitive's service
agreements prevent Restore from repairing EndoWrists.

According to Intuitive, Restore originally contended that it does
not need FDA clearance to extend EndoWrist use limits. However,
Intuitive learned that FDA representatives informed Restore that
they believe that 510(k) clearance is required. Afterward, Restore
retained Alliance to assist it in obtaining 510(k) clearance from
the FDA. In February 2021, Alliance (acting on Restore's behalf)
filed an application with the FDA for 510(k) clearance of Restore's
technology used to extend use limits for a particular EndoWrist by
an additional ten uses.

Based on these facts, as part of discovery in the Restore
litigation, Intuitive served a third-party subpoena on Alliance
seeking documents and information related to Alliance's efforts
before the FDA on behalf of Restore. In response, Alliance produced
about 1,700 documents dated between 2019 and April 1, 2021. The
documents were covered by a protective order that, among other
things, required they be used solely in the Restore litigation (and
not for any other purpose).

Restore is not a party to the underlying litigation here. However,
according to Intuitive, Larkin supports its claims, in part, by
alleging that EndoWrists could be used for dozens--and in some
cases over 100--procedures, if inspected and repaired as needed
between surgeries. Intuitive also asserts that Restore is one of
two IRRCs that purport to have developed technology to circumvent
EndoWrist use limits and is the only IRRC seeking 510(k) clearance
and Alliance is prosecuting that application before the FDA on
Restore's behalf.

Thus, although neither Alliance nor Restore is a party to this
litigation, Intuitive contends that documents from Alliance related
to Alliance's continued efforts (on behalf of Restore) to obtain
510(k) clearance from the FDA for more uses per EndoWrist are
relevant to (1) whether 510(k) clearance is in fact required to
extend the use limits, and (2) whether extending the use limits is
safe (both at all and by what number of uses).

On June 3, 2022, Intuitive served a subpoena on Alliance seeking
documents similar to those Intuitive sought from Alliance in
relation to the Restore litigation, but this time from 2019 to
present. In other words, Intuitive seeks the responsive documents
from the Restore litigation (which, under the relevant protective
order, could not be used for this action) and similar documents
created after the responsive documents from the Restore litigation
(i.e., between April 1, 2021, and July 5, 2022).

On June 16, 2022, Alliance objected to the subpoena on a number of
grounds, including undue burden and confidentiality.

After the parties met and conferred, Alliance agreed to allow
Intuitive to use the documents from the Restore litigation in this
case. It also produced an email chain, dating from Oct. 1, 2021, to
June 30, 2022, with correspondence between itself and FDA
representatives. However, Intuitive contends this chain is
incomplete because it omits certain attachments and does not
include emails between April 1, 2021, and Oct. 1, 2021.

In its present motion, Intuitive asks the Court either to compel
Alliance to fully comply with the subpoena or to transfer the
enforcement dispute to the issuing court in the Northern District
of California.

Intuitive contends transfer to the issuing court in the Northern
District of California is warranted under the factors that courts
typically consider when deciding whether to order transfer of an
application to compel compliance with a third-party subpoena, such
as judicial efficiency and the risk of inconsistent rulings.

In response, Alliance contends transfer would "impose significant
burdens" on it and other third parties based in the Phoenix area
with similar issues in this case. Because Alliance does not consent
to Intuitive's transfer request, Intuitive bears the burden of
showing that exceptional circumstances are present, Judge Lanza
notes, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f).

Judge Lanza finds that exceptional circumstances warranting
transfer exist here for several reasons. The underlying case has
been pending since May 20, 2021 (No. 21-CV-03825) and the deadline
for fact discovery was on Nov. 10, 2022. Given this timeline,
ruling on the motion to compel could disrupt the issuing court's
case management.

The Court agrees with Intuitive that the issuing court is better
situated to "take account of Alliance's interest in
confidentiality." The Court acknowledges that transfer is
appropriate only if such interests outweigh the interests of the
nonparty served with the subpoena in obtaining local resolution of
the motion. Here, Judge Lanza holds that several factors suggest
that transfer would not be unduly burdensome to Alliance.

First, Intuitive indicates that hearings in the underlying
litigation are generally held remotely. Second, Alliance does not
provide much evidence that transfer would subject it to significant
burdens.

Other than the potential cost of retaining counsel in the Northern
District of California, Judge Lanza says it is not clear that
transfer would subject Alliance to any burden.

On balance, the relevant factors weigh in favor of transfer. Given
the looming discovery deadline, the complexity of the underlying
litigation, and the fact that Alliance's confidentiality concerns
may rise or fall with the scope of the issuing court's protective
order, the Court finds that exceptional circumstances exist
warranting transfer of Intuitive's motion to the Northern District
of California. Further, the Court finds that any costs to Alliance
imposed by a transfer are outweighed by the importance of
consistent management of the underlying litigation and judicial
economy.

Because the Court grants Intuitive's request to transfer its motion
to compel to the Northern District of California, it does not rule
on the merits of that motion.

Judge Lanza, accordingly, rules that Intuitive's motion to compel
is granted in part. The Court directs the Clerk to transfer this
matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yck2brfe from Leagle.com.


AMARIN CORP: Court Consolidates Dang and Dorfman Securities Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled VINCENT DANG, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AMARIN CORPORATION PLC,
et al., Defendants. TODD DORFMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AMARIN CORPORATION PLC, et
al., Defendants, Case Nos. 21-19212 (GC) (TJB), 21-19911 (GC) (TJB)
(D.N.J.), Judge Georgette Castner of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey:

   (1) denies the Motions to Consolidate Related Actions, for
       Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and for Approval of Lead
       Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel, filed in Vincent Dang,
       Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
       Situated v. Amarin Corporation PLC, et al. (Civ.
       No. 21-19212) (the "Dang Action") by 1199 SEIU Health Care
       Employees Pension Fund (the "Pension Fund"); Dennis and
       Kimberly Franks, Raymond J. Kosmider, Igor Privet, and
       Karen Avanesov (collectively, the "Amarin Group"); Pawel
       Terlecki; and Vincent Dang; and

   (2) grants the Motion to Consolidate Related Actions, for
       Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and for Approval of Lead
       Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel, filed in Todd Dorfman,
       Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
       Situated v. Amarin Corporation PLC, et al. (Civ.
       No. 21-19911) (the "Dorfman Action") by the Pension Fund,
       pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
       ("PSLRA").

The matter involves two putative class actions consisting of
individuals and entities, who acquired securities from Defendant
Amarin Corporation PLC between Dec. 5, 2018, and June 21, 2021.

Amarin is a biopharmaceutical company whose lead product is
Vascepa(R) (AMR-101), a prescription grade ultra-pure omega-3 fatty
acid derived from fish oil. John F. Thero was Amarin's President
and CEO during the Class Period. Michael W. Kalb was Amarin's
Senior Vice President ("SVP") and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO").
Both Complaints allege that the Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on Amarin's
dissemination of material misstatements or omissions about the
status of ongoing Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA")
litigation challenging the validity of Vascepa's patents.

The Complaints allege that, during the Class Period and despite
negative outcomes for Amarin in the ANDA litigation, the Defendants
continued to assure investors of Vascepa's viability. These
assurances caused Amarin's share prices to remain artificially high
until the investors learned the truth about the ANDA litigation,
causing share prices to decline and the Class members to suffer
significant losses.

Plaintiffs Dang and Dorfman filed the Class Action Complaints on
Oct. 21 and Nov. 10, 2021, respectively. On Dec. 23, 2021, the
Pension Fund, the Amarin Group, Terlecki, and Dang filed the
instant Motions.

The Pension Fund is an institutional investor. The Amarin Group is
a group of five individuals, who invested in Amarin stock during
the Class Period and suffered losses. Dang and Terlecki are both
individual investors.

On Jan. 4, 2022, Terlecki filed a Notice of Non-Opposition, stating
that he does not have the largest financial interest in the Class
and does not oppose the competing motions. On Jan. 4, 2022, Dang
filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Pension Fund's Motion,
stating that the Pension Fund appears to have the largest financial
interest. Dang also requested that the Court appoint him as lead or
co-lead plaintiff if the Court has concerns about the Pension
Fund's adequacy to serve as lead plaintiff, e.g., if the Court has
concerns about standing because the Pension Fund sold the last of
its Amarin shares in the middle of the Class Period, on Oct. 20,
2020.

On Jan. 4, 2022, both the Amarin Group and the Pension Fund filed
oppositions to the competing motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff. On Jan. 11, both the Amarin Group and the Pension Fund
filed replies.

                  Motions to Consolidate Cases

Judge Castner finds that the Complaints in the Dang and Dorfman
Actions involve the same Defendants, Amarin, Thero, and Kalb. Both
Complaints allege violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act based on the Defendants' statements and omissions
regarding the ANDA litigation related to Vascepa. Both Complaints
were brought by Amarin investors alleging injuries based on their
purchasing Amarin securities at "artificially inflated prices"
during the same Class Period, causing them to suffer significant
losses when prices declined.

Further, all of the Movants requested consolidation and there is no
opposition. The Defendants have not indicated that consolidation
would prejudice them.

Thus, to promote "efficiency and avoid unnecessary costs or delay,"
the Court grants the Motions to consolidate the Dang and Dorfman
Actions.

                Motions to Appoint Lead Plaintiff

The parties do not dispute that the Amarin Group has the largest
financial interest of the Movants when aggregating the losses of
its individual members, and that the Pension Fund has the second
highest financial interest. Thus, the Amarin Group has the largest
financial interest of the Movants, followed by the Pension Fund.

The parties also do not dispute that the Amarin Group's claims are
typical of the rest of the class. Thus, the Court agrees that the
Amarin Group has met the prima facie showing for typicality.

There is no dispute that the Amarin Group selected competent and
well-qualified counsel. The principal dispute of the Amarin Group's
adequacy comes from the second factor, where the Court considers
whether the formation or makeup of a group of individuals would
preclude it from serving as lead plaintiff. The Court finds that
the Amarin Group has not established a prima facie case of its
adequacy.

Judge Castner notes that (i) the Amarin Group is comprised of five
individuals who live in different places around the United States
and who do not have a relationship outside of this litigation; (ii)
the fact that the individual financial losses of the Amarin Group's
members are significantly lower than those of the other individual
Movants suggests that the group was formed to aggregate individual
financial losses; (iii) with respect to the Amarin Group's ability
to operate effectively as a single unit, the Amarin Group submitted
a joint declaration, signed by the members on Dec. 21 and 22, 2022;
and (iv) the Amarin Group's size of five individuals is on the
upper-limit of what the Third Circuit has deemed presumptively
acceptable for a lead plaintiff group.

However, Judge Castner holds, when considering its size in relation
to the factors for adequacy, the Amarin Group has not demonstrated
its ability to "operate effectively as a single unit." Considering
the factors as a whole, the Court finds the Amarin Group has not
made a prima facie showing of its adequacy to represent the Class.

                  The Pension Fund's Motion for
                  Appointment as Lead Plaintiff

The Pension Fund timely filed its lead plaintiff motion. It has
asserted that its claims are "typical" of the rest of the class
because it purchased securities during the Class Period at prices
artificially inflated by Defendants' materially false statements or
omissions. It also has set forth a prima facie case for its
adequacy. Its large individual financial loss will ensure its
incentive to represent the claims vigorously. Accordingly, the
Pension Fund has set forth a prima facie case that it is the
presumptive lead plaintiff.

The Amarin Group and Dang challenge the Pension Fund's adequacy to
serve as lead plaintiff because it sold more shares than it
purchased during the Class Period and thus, is a "net seller."

While the Pension Fund did indeed sell its shares before the end of
the Class Period, Judge Castner notes the Pension Fund still
suffered net losses. Thus, the Pension Fund is unlike the lead
plaintiff movant in In re Bausch & Lomb Inc. Securities Litigation,
which was a "net gainer" and "profited, rather than suffered, as a
result of the inflated stock prices," Judge Castner points out.

Additionally, Judge Castner finds the Pension Fund's sale of its
shares before the Class Period ended does not render it incapable
of adequately protecting the interests of the Class or subject it
to unique defenses because it sold its shares after two of the four
alleged disclosures during the Class Period.

To the extent the Amarin Group argues that the Pension Fund does
not have standing to serve as lead plaintiff because the Pension
Fund has not traded in both options and common stock, this argument
is unsupported by case law, Judge Castner holds. The fact that
another movant (the Amarin Group) has traded in both options and
common stock does not demonstrate that the Pension Fund will not
represent the class fairly and adequately.

Accordingly, Judge Castner finds no party has rebutted the Pension
Fund's presumptive lead plaintiff status.

             Motion to Approve the Lead Plaintiff's
                    Selection of Lead Counsel

The Pension Fund is a sophisticated institutional investor, who has
served as lead plaintiff and selected Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP as lead counsel in other matters. Robbins Geller currently
serves or has served as lead counsel in several securities actions
in this district, including In re Valeant Pharm. Int'l, Inc. Sec.
Litig., Civ. No. 15-7658, (D.N.J. May 31, 2016).

Based on the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that the Pension
Fund carefully selected Robbins Geller, and that Robbins Geller has
the qualifications and experience to serve as lead counsel.
Moreover, no party has objected to the approval of Robbins Geller
as counsel.

Accordingly, the Court approves the Pension Fund's selection of
counsel.

For these reasons, the Motion to Consolidate Related Actions, for
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and for Approval of Lead Plaintiff's
Selection of Counsel filed by the Pension Fund is granted, and the
competing motions, filed by the Amarin Group, Dang, and Terlecki
are denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Oct. 27,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2px3nafa from
Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: Doe BIPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JANE DOE, by and through next friend JOHN DOE,
RICHARD ROBINSON, and YOLANDA BROWN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 20 L 206, was
removed from the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit,
St. Clair County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois on November 4, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-02575 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Russell K. Scott, Esq.
         GREENSFELDER HEMKER & GALE PC
         12 Wolf Creek Drive, Suite 100
         Belleville, IL 62226
         Telephone: (618) 239-3612
         E-mail: rks@greensfelder.com

                 - and -

         Raj N. Shah, Esq.
         Eric M. Roberts, Esq.
         Matthew J. Freilich, Esq.
         DLA PIPER LLP (US)  
         444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 368-4000
         E-mail: raj.shah@dlapiper.com
                 eric.roberts@dlapiper.com
                 matt.freilich@dlapiper.com

                 - and -

         Isabelle L. Ord, Esq.
         DLA PIPER LLP (US)
         555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 836-2500
         E-mail: isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com

ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Wilson Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Arc Automotive, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Earl Wilson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Arc Automotive, Inc., General
Motors, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09432 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

ARC Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.arcautomotive.com/-- is a
global manufacturer that produces a full complement of inflators
for automotive airbag applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 496-0300
          Fax: (215) 496-6611
          Email: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com


ARM & HAMMER: Misclassifies Framers & Foremen, Bloomer Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JUSTIN BLOOMER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARM & HAMMER CONSTRUCTION LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company; and TIMOTHY YNIGUEZ and JANE DOE
YNIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01896-MTM (D. Ariz., November
4, 2022) challenges the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment
practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arizona Wage Statute.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a framer and foreman
from July 22, 2021 until he was terminated on July 25, 2022.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly misclassified
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers as independent
contractors. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week,
the Defendants denied them of their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In
addition, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff for his work
performed from July 15, 2022 to July 25, 2022.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to
recover unpaid overtime wages and unpaid wages, for himself and all
other similarly situated workers, against the Defendant. The
Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages, treble damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees along with costs, and other legal and equitable
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Arm & Hammer Construction LLC is a construction company that
provides framing services. Timothy Yniguez is the owner and
operator of the Corporate Defendant. Jane Doe Yniquez is the spouse
of Timothy Yniguez. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUTOZONERS LLC: Duran Suit Remanded to Supreme Court, Bronx County
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York remands to state court the lawsuit
titled JOFENY DURAN, Plaintiff v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 22 Civ. 7817 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.).

On Sept. 13, 2022, the Defendants filed a notice of removal from
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The Court
was alleged to have diversity jurisdiction over the case under 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d), known as the Class Action Fairness Act.

As stated in a letter filed Sept. 19, 2022, the parties agreed to
the Plaintiff's counsel amending the Complaint to take out the
class claims, among other changes. The Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022, and a Second Amended Complaint (the
"SAC") on Oct. 26, 2022. The SAC no longer includes the class
claims and fails to provide "a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction."

As the SAC no longer alleges the class claims, this subsection of
28 U.S.C. Section 1332 cannot serve as the basis for the Court's
jurisdiction, Judge Schofield notes. He finds the SAC fails to
allege any amount in controversy, let alone that it exceeds the sum
or value of $75,000. The Court, therefore, lacks diversity
jurisdiction.

The SAC does not allege a federal claim. Thus, the Court also lacks
federal question jurisdiction.

For these reasons, the matter is remanded to state court. The Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Pursuant to
section 1447(c), the Clerk of Court is directed to mail a certified
copy of this Order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
New York County.

The Clerk of Court is further directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4nye977c from Leagle.com.


AVALARA INC: Parekh Balks at $8.4-Bil. Buyout of Vista Equity
-------------------------------------------------------------
VINEET PAREKH, Individually and on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated v. AVALARA, INC., SCOTT MCFARLANE, BRUCE
CRAWFORD, MARION FOOTE, EDWARD GILHULY, WILLIAM INGRAM, MARCELA
MARTIN, TAMI RELLER, BRIAN SHARPLES, RAJEEV SINGH, SRINIVAS
TALLAPRAGADA, and KATHY ZWICKERT, Case No. 2:22-cv-01580 (W.D.
Wash., Nov. 4, 2022) alleges that the Defendants violates the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) Rule 14a-9, in connection with the acquisition of
Avalara by Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC for $93.50 per
share in cash and $8.4 billion in cash in total.

On September 12, 2022, to convince Avalara shareholders to vote in
favor of the acquisition, the Defendants authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A (the Proxy) with
SEC. The Defendants allegedly misled shareholders into approving
the acquisition by creating unreasonably low financial projections
to achieve support for the desired fairness opinion, says the
suit.

Avalara's shareholder vote regarding the acquisition was held on
October 14, 2022 and resulted in the Company's misled shareholders
approving the June 21, 2021 merger agreement in reliance on the
foregoing misrepresentations. In total, 33.8% of Avalara's shares
voted against approving the deal, abstained from voting, or were
not represented at the Shareholder Vote. The acquisition closed on
October 19, 2022, causing Avalara's shares to be delisted from the
New York Stock Exchange and thereby denying Avalara's public owners
the ability to profit from the Company’s future growth. As a
result of the dissemination of the materially false, misleading,
and incomplete Proxy that Defendants used to obtain shareholder
approval of the Merger, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered
damages and actual economic losses, the suit claims.

Avalara is a Washington corporation with principal executive
offices in Seattle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Jonathan T. Lerner, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
                  jlerner@monteverdelaw.com

               - and –

          Roger M. Townsend, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC
          1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 652-8660
          E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

BAYER CORPORATION: Hitt Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Heather Hitt, Alison Dirk,, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayer Healthcare LLC,
Bayer Corporation, Elanco Animal Health, Inc., Case No.
4:22-cv-01657, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 3, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06018 to the
proceeding.

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

Bayer -- https://www.bayer.com/en/ -- is a German multinational
pharmaceutical and biotechnology company and one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Williams, Esq.
          LATHROP & GAGE - KANSAS CITY
          2345 Grand Blvd., Ste. 2200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 460-5562
          Fax: (816) 292-2001
          Email: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

          Rachel L. Soffin, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Phone: (865) 247-0080
          Email: rsoffin@milberg.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          48th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: (212) 594-5300


BRERA HOLDINGS: Kironmic BioPharma Putative Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brera Holdings PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the Kironmic
BioPharma putative class action is pending in court as of September
2, 2022.

On August 5, 2022, the plaintiff, Ronald Karp commenced a putative
class action against Kiromic Biopharma, Inc. (Kiromic) and its
current or former officers and directors, among other defendants,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The allegations in the complaint, which the plaintiff
filed on the same day, center on alleged violations of federal
securities laws in relation to Kiromic's public stock offering that
opened on or about June 29, 2021 and closed on or about July 2,
2021 (the June 2021 Offering).

The complaint alleges that the June 2021 Offering documents
contained untrue or material misleading misrepresentations or
omission due to the failure of those documents to disclose that the
FDA had placed a clinical hold on Kiromic's two Investigational New
Drug (IND) applications. Pietro Bersani, who has been nominated to
serve as a member of our board of directors, is individually named
as a defendant in the complaint due to his position as a member of
Kiromic's board of directors and chairman of the audit committee
during the time relevant to the allegations in the complaint. Mr.
Bersani is also currently Kiromic's chief executive officer.

The complaint prays for certification of the case as a class action
and judgment in favor of the named plaintiff and members of the
putative plaintiff class for an award against the defendants,
jointly and severally, for recission (as appropriate) of amounts
paid for shares purchased in the June 2021 Offering or all damages
sustained in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest,
and attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, among other relief.

As of September 2, 2022, this case was pending.

Brera Holdings PLC is an Irish holding company focused on expanding
social impact football by developing a global portfolio of emerging
football clubs


BROADWAY VIVA: Villano Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN VILLANO, VICTOR MORALES, MARCOS DIEGO TAPIA, and JORGE LUIS
GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
BROADWAY VIVA, INC. d/b/a CAFE VIVA GOURMET PIZZA, VIVA NATURAL
PIZZA INC. d/b/a VIVA CUCINA, ANTHONY IRACANI, JUSTIN IRACANI, and
LENNY IRACAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-09417 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2022) seek
to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid "spread of hours" premiums pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.

The named Plaintiffs were hired in different dates during the
period 1999-2021. There employment came to an end upon the closing
of Cafe Viva on September 9, 2022.

Broadway Viva is a domestic business corporation with a principal
place of business at 2578 Broadway, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

BURGER SPOT: Rivas Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO RIVAS, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated v. BURGER SPOT, LLC, a New York limited liability company,
and JOHN DOE, and individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-06757 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 4, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Mr. Rivas worked for the Defendants from May 2021 through April
2022. From Saturday night through Thursday, Mr. Rivas was employed
as a grill man, and his duties included cooking menu items for
customers, on Friday, the Burger Spot was closed, and Mr. Rivas
cleaned the restaurant from 11 a.m. until 4 p.m. He worked anywhere
from 80-90 hours per week or more, the Plaintiff claims.

Burger spot is a fast-food restaurant at 64-29 108th St, Forest
Hills, 11375.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (954) 745-0588
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
                  amy@nklegal.com
                  melanie@nklegal.com

CANCOS TILE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cancos Tile
Corporation. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Cancos Tile
Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-06691-NGG-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 3,
2022).

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

Cancos Tile Corp. -- https://cancostileandstone.com/ -- is a family
owned and operated business and has been a ceramic tile, marble and
granite agent, importer, distributor and retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARDINAL HEALTH: LSP&RF Shareholder Suit Stayed Pending Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the court stayed
the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund shareholder
securities suit while the parties participate in mediation.

In August 2019, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund filed
a purported class action complaint against Cardinal Health and
certain current and former officers and employees in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of our common shares between March 2015
and May 2018.

In June 2020, the court appointed 1199 SEIU Health Care Employees
Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed in September 2020.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by
making misrepresentations and omissions related to the acquisition
integration of the Cordis business and inventory and supply chain
problems within the Cordis business, and seeks to recover
unspecified damages and equitable relief for the alleged
misstatements and omissions.

The complaint also alleges that one of the individual defendants
violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act because he sold shares of
Cardinal Health stock during the time period.

In September 2021, the court denied our motion to dismiss.

In September 2022, the court entered an order staying the case
while the parties participate in mediation.

The Company continues to vigorously defend against these claims.

Cardinal Health, Inc. is a company that provides healthcare
services and products in Ohio.


CARLOTZ INC: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, Keller Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
SHOLOM D. KELLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CARLOTZ, INC., LEV PEKER, LINDA B. ABRAHAM,
STEVEN G. CARREL, NANXI LIU, DAVID R. MITCHELL, KIMBERLY H. SHEEHY,
JAMES E. SKINNER, and LUIS IGNACIO SOLORZANO, Case No. 2022-1006
(Del. Ch., Nov. 4, 2022) alleges that the Defendants breach
fiduciary duty in connection with their solicitation of the
approval of CarLotz stockholders of the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated August 9, 2022.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of CarLotz
common stock will be converted into the right to receive 0.692158
shares of Shift common stock, subject to an adjustment based on
Shift's issued and outstanding shares prior to the effective time
of the Merger, relative to the fully diluted CarLotz shares prior
to the effective time of the Merger. The Proxy was signed on behalf
of CarLotz by the Defendants Solorzano and Peker. The Proxy, among
other things, includes the
recommendation of the CarLotz Board that CarLotz stockholders vote
to approve the Merger (Stockholder Vote) at a special meeting
(Special Meeting) yet to be scheduled. The Proxy, however, omits
certain material facts that must be disclosed to CarLotz
stockholders before the Stockholder Vote to enable them to cast
fully informed votes with respect to the Merger.

Carlotz, Inc. operates as a used vehicle consignment and retail
remarketing business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC
          1204 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Tel: (302) 803-4600
          E-mail: rernst@bk-legal.com

                - and –

          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          WEISS LAW
          476 Hardendorf Ave. NE
          Atlanta, GA 30307
          Telephone: (404) 692-7910
          E-mail: mrogovin@weisslawllp.com

                - and –

          Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
          WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
          25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
          Monsey, NY 10952
          Telephone: (845) 290-6818
          E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter

CEREBRAL INC: Cullors Sues Over Illegal Prescribing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
STACIA CULLORS, an individual; ERIC EBERLE, an individual; MAGGIE
HARRISON, an individual; NICOLE SCURLOCK DEWEY, an individual;
MERCEDES SCHROEDER, an individual; PATRICIA ANNE CRAWFORD, an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
CRAWFORD, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CEREBRAL, INC., and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case
No. 22STCV35155 (Cal. Super., Nov. 4, 2022) alleges that Cerebral
fails to provide access to adequate  prescribers and counselors who
have the knowledge and experience  needed to treat patients with
mental health conditions.

Cerebral has come under scrutiny for its prescribing practices,
including but not limited to:

  -- failing to provide therapy appointments for weeks on end
     and in a timely manner, sometimes providing its vulnerable
     customers who need consistent therapy, dates that are months
     out;

  -- overprescribing medication, including controlled substances;

  -- failing to timely provide access to medication, resulting in
     its customers suffering physical and mental health
     consequences, including but not limited to withdrawal from
     lack of  timely prescription refills;

  -- failing to provide Care Counselors who are available to help
     navigate scheduling or respond to inquiries about various
     issues in a timely manner; and

  -- making it virtually impossible to cancel a membership.

Plaintiff Cullors signed-up for a Cerebral membership in April
2022. On May 2, 2022, after only one zoom meeting with a
prescriber/counselor, she was prescribed Wellbutrin, an
anti-depressant medication despite not having any symptoms for
depression, the Plaintiff says.

Since taking Wellbutrin, Plaintiff Cullors has become progressively
less motivated, less energetic, and has noticed that she is not
interested in her usual hobbies that she partakes in on her days
off from work as a nurse, the Plaintiff added.

Cerebral is a mental health telemedicine company that is
subscription-based and provides its customers with access to
therapy, counseling, and medication for ADHD, anxiety, depression,
and other mental health conditions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Azar Mouzari, Esq.
          Nilofar Nouri, Esq.
          BEVERLY HILLS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C.
          468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 238
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 858-5567
          Facsimile: (424) 286-0963
          E-mail: azar@bhtrialattorneys.com
                  nilofar@bhtrialattorneys.com

CHANTECAILLE BEAUTE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chantecaille Beaute
Inc. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Chantecaille Beaute Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09425-PGG-SN (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 3, 2022).

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

Chantecaille -- https://chantecaille.com/ -- offers a full
collection of luxury botanical skincare, makeup, fragrance & baby
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


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Neal Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holding Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that Cinemark Holdings
Inc. continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Lakeenya
Neal.

Lakeenya Neal, et al v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al. This class
action lawsuit was filed against the Company on December 10, 2021,
in the Central District of Los Angeles County Superior Court of the
State of California alleging certain violations of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

The Company firmly maintain that the allegations are without merit
and will vigorously defend this lawsuit. It cannot predict the
outcome of this litigation.

Cinemark Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
the motion picture exhibition business. As of December 31, 2018, it
operated 341 theatres and 4,586 screens in 41 states of the United
States; and 205 theatres and 1,462 screens in Brazil, Argentina,
Chile, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia, Curacao, and Paraguay. The
company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas.


CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUES: Cuevas Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIEL CUEVAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUES, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2216488, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on November
4, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-01953 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wage, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods,
non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll
records, wages not timely paid upon termination, failure to pay
timely wages during employment, failure to provide reporting time
pay, unreimbursed business expenses, and unlawful and unfair
business practices.

Claire's Boutiques, Inc. is an American retailer of accessories,
jewelry, and toys, headquartered in Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS
         725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 630-8592
         Facsimile: (213) 689-0404
         E-mail: Adam.siegel@jackson.lewis.com

                 - and -

         Kien C. Tiet, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS
         3390 University Ave., Suite 110
         Riverside, CA 92501
         Telephone: (951) 848-7952
         E-mail: kien.tiet@jacksonlewis.com

                 - and -

         Mossamat N. Karim, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS
         50 California Street, 9th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 796-5421
         Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
         E-mail: Mossamat.Karim@jacksonlewis.com

CLEAR SKY LOCAL: Fabricant TCPA Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Terry Fabricant, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Clear Sky Local, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00843
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on Nov. 3, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-06700-AMD-LGD to
the proceeding.

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

Clear Sky Local -- https://clearskylocal.com/ -- is a digital
marketing agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul B Sweeney, Esq.
          CERTILMAN BALIN LLP
          90 Merrick Avenue
          East Meadow, NY 11554
          Phone: (516) 296-7000
          Fax: (516) 296-7111
          Email: psweeney@certilmanbalin.com


COAST DENTAL: Davis TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMANDA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COAST DENTAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
22-CA-008303, was removed from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on November 4, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:22-cv-02520-MSS-AAS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act by transmitting telephonic sales calls to the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers without their consent.

Coast Dental Services, LLC is a provider of dental care services,
headquartered in Tampa, Florida. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Josh A. Migdal, Esq.
         Yaniv Adar, Esq.
         MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
         80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
         Miami, FL 33130
         Telephone: (305) 374-0440
         E-mail: yaniv@markmigdal.com
                 josh@markmigdal.com

COVENANT LOGISTICS: Maas Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Covenant Logistics Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that
Covenant Transport, Inc. continues to defend a putative class
action suit initiated by Wesley Maas.

On February 11, 2021, a lawsuit was filed against Covenant
Transport on behalf of Wesley Maas (a California resident and
former driver) who is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a
class action.

The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, California. The Complaint alleges claims for failure to pay
all lawful wages, failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods
or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to timely pay wages,
failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions, failure
to indemnify for expenditures, and violations of California Labor
Code and unfair competition laws.

Based on the Company's present knowledge of the facts and, in
certain cases, advice of outside counsel, management believes that
the recent resolution and dismissal of a prior class action lawsuit
alleging similar claims, taking into account existing reserves, is
not likely to have a materially adverse effect on its condensed
consolidated financial statements, however, any future liability
claims could impact this analysis.

Covenant Transport intends to vigorously defend itself in this
matter.

Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The
Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for
shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products
industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


COVENANT LOGISTICS: Markson Putative Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Logistics Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the
court dismissed the putative class action initiated by Curtis
Markson, et al on August 10, 2022.

On August 2, 2018, Curtis Markson, et al. filed a putative class
action case in United States District Court, Central District of
California generically claiming that five specified trucking
companies (including our subsidiary Southern Refrigerated
Transport, Inc.) entered into a "no poaching conspiracy" in which
they agreed not to solicit or hire employees in California who were
"under contract" with a fellow defendant.

The allegations center around new drivers in California who
received their commercial driver's license through driving schools
associated with, or paid for by, one of the named defendants, in
exchange for agreeing to drive for that defendant carrier for a
specified amount of time (typically 8-10 months).

Over the ensuing 18 – 24 months, the Plaintiffs added more
trucking companies as co-defendants in the lawsuit, including our
subsidiary, Covenant Transport, Inc., on April 23, 2020.

The lawsuit claims that the named co-defendants sent letters to one
another, providing notice of "under contract" status, if these new
California drivers were hired by another defendant carrier prior to
the driver completing their contractual obligations. Plaintiffs
contend that these notifications evidence a collusive agreement by
the named defendants to restrain competition among trucking
companies in California and suppress wages.

This lawsuit was settled following mediation on August 20, 2021,
for an immaterial amount pending court approval.

The Court dismissed this lawsuit on August 10, 2022.

Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The
Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for
shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products
industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

COVENANT TRANSPORT: Tabizon Putative Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Logistics Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the
court dismissed the Richard Tabizon putative class action against
the company's subsidiary Covenant Transport, Inc. on June 20,
2022.

Covenant Transport is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on November 9,
2018, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California. The
lawsuit was filed on behalf of Richard Tabizon (a California
resident and former driver) who is seeking to have the lawsuit
certified as a class action. The complaint asserts that the time
period covered by the lawsuit is from October 31, 2014 to the
present and alleges claims for failure to properly pay drivers for
rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements
and/or reimbursement of business related expenses, unlawful
deduction of wages, failure to pay proper minimum wage and overtime
wages, failure to provide all wages due at termination, and other
related wage and hour claims under the California Labor Code. Since
the original filing date, the case has been removed from the Los
Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court in the Central
District of California and subsequently the case was transferred to
the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee where
the case is now pending.

This lawsuit was settled at mediation on April 29, 2021, for an
immaterial amount, pending court approval.

The Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the Class
Settlement on December 31, 2021. The Court dismissed this lawsuit
on June 20, 2022.

Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The
Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for
shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products
industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


CRISIS COLLECTION: District of Nevada Dismisses Miller Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada dismisses with prejudice the lawsuit styled WILLIAM R.
MILLER, Plaintiff v. CRISIS COLLECTION MANAGEMENT LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-CV-262 JCM (BNW) (D. Nev.).

Defendants Crisis Collection Management, LLC, and Robert Broili
moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.

On July 16, 1997, a Nevada district court entered default judgment
in favor of Ford Motor Company for $13,660.16 against the plaintiff
in a car repossession matter. On April 23, 2003, Ford Motor renewed
that judgment pursuant to Nevada law, which requires renewal during
a certain ninety-day period and for the judgment creditor to mail a
copy of the renewal affidavit to the debtor "within 3 days after
filing the affidavit."

Six years later, Ford, through the Defendants, renewed the judgment
a second time on March 16, 2009. According to the Plaintiff, this
renewal was defective, however, both because the affidavit of
renewal was mailed on March 11, 2009 (five days before the renewal
was filed rather than within the three days after) and because
March 16 is more than ninety days before July 16 (the anniversary
of the docketing of the original judgment).

The Defendants would go on to renew the judgment two more times
despite this allegedly "improper" first renewal: March 5, 2015, and
March 1, 2021. The Plaintiff contends these renewals were invalid
for the same reasons as the 2009 renewal in addition to the fact
that are invalid because of the "flawed" 2009 renewal.

The Plaintiff now brings this putative class action under the
Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. He claims that the
Defendants' improper renewals constitute false representations and
unfair practices under the FDCPA and asks for a declaration that
the judgments are invalid against him. The Defendants move to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

The Plaintiff's complaint is premised on two assumptions of law:
(1) Nevada Revised Statute 17.214(3) is satisfied only when a
judgment creditor sends a copy of the affidavit within three days
after (not on, or before) the day the judgment is renewed, and (2)
judgments may only be renewed every six years in the ninety days
immediately preceding the anniversary of the original judgment
pursuant to NRS 17.214(1)(a).

Both premises are incorrect, Judge Mahan holds. The Defendants
complied with the renewal procedures for its judgment, and the
Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed, with prejudice, for
failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiff asserts that because the Defendants mailed the
affidavit too early, they forfeit their right to renew the
judgment. Judge Mahan holds that this interpretation strains
credibility.

Judge Mahan holds the Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law.
All three of the Plaintiff's claims are predicated on the assertion
that the Defendants' renewals were invalid. Since the Court has
determined that these renewals were valid as a matter of law, the
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

Determining that the Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law,
the Court finds that granting him leave to amend would be futile.
Interpreting the plain language of the statutes, the Court finds
that the judgments were properly renewed and the notice was valid.
Given that, the Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief. The
Court, thus, dismisses the complaint with prejudice.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. The
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is
instructed to enter judgment, accordingly, and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4uzp4tdu from Leagle.com.


CVS Pharmacy: Gum & Enamel Repair Can't Cure Gingivitis, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Teran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09486-VM
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2022), contends that the Defendant's "Gum &
Enamel Repair" is false, deceptive and misleading because it can
only help "control, reduce or prevent gingivitis, an early form of
gum disease."

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells toothpaste
represented as for "Gum & Enamel Repair" allegedly and containing
"a Clinically proven ingredient to help reverse gingivitis" under
the CVS Health brand. Reasonable consumers will expect the Product
will repair structural damage such as gum recession, bone loss, or
periodontal pocketing, in addition to the promise of "revers[ing]
gingivitis," says the suit.

The Product's active ingredient -- Stannous Fluoride -- which is
common to most toothpastes, provides no unique gum "repair"
benefits nor is authorized to claim it can reverse gingivitis.

Stannous fluoride only "helps interfere with harmful effects of
plaque associated with gingivitis."

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$4.79 for 4.1 oz, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar
products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it
would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions, the suit further asserts.

CVS Pharmacy is a Rhode Island corporation with a principal place
of business in Woonsocket, Providence County.[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

DANONE NORTH: Cappalli Sues Over Mislabeled Vanilla Almondmilk
--------------------------------------------------------------
IRENE CAPPALLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DANONE NORTH AMERICA PUBLIC BENEFIT
CORPORATION d/b/a DANONE NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00716-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla., Nov. 7, 2022) alleges violation
of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant labels, markets, and
sells a food product, known as a "Vanilla" almondmilk, under the
brand name of "Silk" (the "Product").

The Product's front label prominently and conspicuously displays
the word "VANILLA." Despite the Defendant's characterization of the
Product as a "vanilla" almondmilk, the Product does not contain
vanilla as an ingredient that independently creates the Product's
vanilla taste. Instead, the Product derives its Characterizing
Flavor from an ingredient known as "Natural Flavor," as identified
in small print on the Product's ingredient list, located on the
label on the backside of the Product, says the suit.

Th Defendant's actions lead reasonable consumers to expect that the
Product would contain vanilla in the form of a non-exclusive
ingredient, responsible for creating the Product's Characterizing
Vanilla Flavor, not as a "natural flavor" ingredient.

The Defendant's failure to identify on the Product's front label,
by including the words "natural flavor," that the Product does not
contain vanilla as one of its characterizing, but not exclusive,
ingredients is deceptive, the suit added.

DANONE NORTH AMERICA INC. operates as a food and beverage company.
The Company specializes in fresh and organic dairy, plant-based,
fresh foods, and coffee creamers products, as well as beverages.
Danone North America serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan J. Geiger, Esq.
          Thomas M. Bonan, Esq.
          SERAPH LEGAL, P.A.
          1614 N. 19th St.
          Tampa, FL 33605
          Telephone: (813) 567-1230
          Email: BGeiger@SeraphLegal.com
                 TBonan@SeraphLegal.com

DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Lane Sues Over Defective Products
----------------------------------------------------
David Lane and Lorraine Anda, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DEWALT INDUSTRIAL TOOL CO., and
STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-01949 (C.D. Cal.,
Nov. 3, 2022), is brought against Defendants DeWALT Industrial Tool
Co. and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. for the manufacture and sale
of its 12-inch Sliding Compound Miter Saws (collectively, the
"Products"), all of which suffer from an identical defect in
design.

Specifically, the rear safety guards can break or detach, posing a
significant safety hazard for consumers. Such a design defect is
extraordinarily dangerous and has rendered the Products unsuitable
for their principal and intended purpose. Due to the dangerous
nature of the defect, the Defendants initiated a recall (the
"Recall") of its 12-inch Sliding Compound Miter Saws. However, the
Recall is grossly inadequate, as it does not provide consumers,
like the Plaintiffs, with any monetary relief, and it fails to
provide direct notice to consumers. The Plaintiffs bring their
claims against the Defendants individually and on behalf of a class
of all other similarly situated purchasers of the Products for
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, fraud; unjust
enrichment; breach of implied warranties; and violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased a DeWALT 12-inch Sliding Compound Miter
Saw from a Home Depot store.

The Defendants are manufacturers of power and hand tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com


DOMINION ENERGY: Court Junks Metzler Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
PPL Corp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 4, 2022, that the court dismissed the
Metzler Lawsuit in June 2022.

In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against
Dominion Energy and certain former directors of SCANA and DESC in
the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina
(the Metzler Lawsuit). The plaintiff alleges, among other things,
that defendants violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders by
executing a merger agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs
of the true value of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy
aided and abetted these actions.

Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin and/or rescind
the merger.

In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018.

In September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the
Metzler Lawsuit with another lawsuit regarding the SCANA Merger
Agreement to which DESC is not a party.

In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against
certain former directors and executive officers of SCANA and DESC,
which stated substantially similar allegations to those in the
initial lawsuits as well as an inseparable fraud claim.

In November 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In
April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina denied the motion to dismiss.

In May 2020, SCANA filed a motion to intervene, which was denied in
August 2020.

In September 2020, SCANA filed a notice of appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In June 2021, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle this case, along with a
related case to which DESC was not a party, subject to court
approval, with no financial impact to DESC.

In June 2022, this case was dismissed in connection with court
approval of the related case to which DESC was not a party.

Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (formerly known as South
Carolina Electric & Gas Company) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
SCANA Corporation which, effective January 2019, is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dominion Energy, Inc.


EL BUKANITAS: Fails to Pay Server's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTA ELIZA SANCHEZ FLORES, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. EL BUKANITAS INC. D/B/A "BUKANITAS
BAR" and VICTOR MANUEL GONZALES, Jointly and Severally, Case No.
1:22-cv-06751 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2022) alleges that the Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wage and OT overtime premium pay,
failed to reimburse costs of uniforms and pay the additional
required weekly amount for uniform laundering and maintenance, and
failed to provide the Notice and Acknowledgement of Payrate and
Payday pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked as a server for the Defendants at their bar
located in Brooklyn, New York, from September 2015 to mid-March
2020 and from July 4, 2020 to March 22, 2022.

Bukanitas Bar is a late-night place for dancing and drinks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  milana@lipskylowe.com

ENVIVA INC: Fagen Sues Over Violation of Securities Laws
--------------------------------------------------------
David Fagen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ENVIVA INC., JOHN K. KEPPLER, SHAI S. EVEN, Case No.
8:22-cv-02844-DKC (D. Md., Nov. 3, 2022), is brought on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Enviva securities between
February 21, 2019 and October 11, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain
of its top officials resulting in the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities.

The Company's products are used as a substitute for coal in power
generation, and combined heat and power plants. Significantly,
Enviva touts itself as a "growth-oriented" environmental, social,
and governance ("ESG") company with a "platform to generate stable
and growing cash flows."

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Enviva had
misrepresented the environmental sustainability of its wood pellet
production and procurement; Enviva had similarly overstated the
true measure of cash flow generated by the Company's platform;
(iii) accordingly, Enviva had misrepresented its business model and
the Company's ability to achieve the level of growth that
Defendants had represented to investors; and as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On October 12, 2022, during pre-market hours, Blue Orca Capital
("Blue Orca") published a report on Enviva (the "Blue Orca
Report"). Among other allegations, the Blue Orca Report stated that
"new discovered data suggests the company is flagrantly
greenwashing its wood procurement" and characterized Enviva's claim
to be a "pure play ESG Company with a healthy, self-funded dividend
and cash flows to provide a platform for future growth" as
"nonsense on all counts." Moreover, the Blue Orca Report alleged
that "Enviva is a dangerously levered serial capital raiser whose
deteriorating cash conversion and unprofitability will drain it of
cash next year" and is "a product of deranged European climate
subsidies which incentivize the destruction of American forests so
that European power companies can check a bureaucratic box."

On this news, Enviva's stock price fell $7.74 per share, or 13.13%,
to close at $51.23 per share on October 12, 2022. As a result of
the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired Enviva securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

Enviva, formerly known as Enviva Partners, LP, develops,
constructs, acquires, and owns and operates, fully contracted wood
pellet production plants.[BN]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          William Wilder, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          Email: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
                 wwilder@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
          Atlanta, GA 30346
          Phone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces Key Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS KEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-12689-MFL-CI (E.D. Mich., Nov. 7, 2022) is a class action
by the Plaintiff and the Class whose sensitive personal identifying
information was compromised in a cybersecurity breach of Flagstar,
which was announced on or about June 17, 2022 (the "Flagstar
Breach").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Flagstar failed to
adequately protect consumers' sensitive PII, providing a means for
unauthorized intruders to access Flagstar's computer network and
steal sensitive PII. With access to someone's PII, it is possible
to misuse that person's name to do some or all of the following:
take out loans; open new financial accounts; obtain government
benefits; file a fraudulent tax return and obtain a tax refund;
obtain a driver's license or identification card; or give false
information to police during an arrest.

As a result of the Flagstar Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft, says the suit.

FLAGSTAR BANK FSB operates as a full-service bank. The Bank accepts
deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the public,
which includes personal banking, online transaction, and debit, and
credit card services. Flagstar Bank serves customers throughout the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Ryan P. McDevitt, Esq.
          Sydney Read, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          Email: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                 rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
                 sread@kellerrohrback.com

               - and-

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

               - and-

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
          Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                 mtroutner@ktmc.com
                 ebarlieb@ktmc.com


FORD MOTOR: Vehicles' Mobile App Inoperable, Scriber Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SCRIBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-01716-MMA-MDD
(S.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022) alleges that the Class Vehicles' internet
enabled features, such as roadside emergency safety features and
other features available through the MyFord or MyLincoln Mobile
App, were rendered inoperable after AT&T's 3G phase out in 2022 due
to Ford's installation of obsolete telematics equipment in the
Class Vehicles.

On August 30, 2020, the Plaintiff purchased a new 2020 Ford Fusion
Energi, a plug-in hybrid, from El Cajon Ford. The Plaintiff's
vehicle is covered by a 3 year/36,000 mile New Vehicle Limited
Warranty.

In June 2022, Plaintiff noticed that his MyFord Mobile App was not
working. He was unable to remote start his vehicle, check whether
his vehicle was charging, or schedule when his plugged-in vehicle
charged. Ford informed him that his vehicle's modem was no longer
functional and that the anti-theft system installed in his vehicle
that allowed him to identify his vehicle's location in case of
theft would no longer function.

On July 11, 2022, the Plaintiff brought his vehicle to the Service
Center at El Cajon Ford. His car had 12,009 miles on it. After many
weeks and several dozen phone calls, El Cajon Ford's Service Center
determined that Plaintiff's vehicle had a 3G rather than a 4G modem
installed. They further informed him that Ford offered a 4G modem
upgrade kit, however Ford did not consider it a repair covered by
the warranty. They estimated that the upgrade kit costs $458.69 and
labor involved would cost $558.48.

On October 14, 2022, the Plaintiff sent a letter to Ford demanding
that they honor the replacement of his non-functional 3G modem with
a functional 4G modem as an authorized repair under the New Vehicle
Warranty. Ford did not offer to repair or replace his modem, or
otherwise resolve the problems with the Plaintiff's vehicle.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant breached the terms of the
express warranties by not providing the Class Vehicles with
properly functioning modems.

Ford sells automobiles and commercial vehicles under the Ford
brand, and luxury cars under its Lincoln luxury brand. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
          Christopher Stiner, Esq.
          Deborah De Villa, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505-4521
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
                  ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com

GANNETT COMPANY: Faces Buechler Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BUECHLER; and GRETA EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GANNETT COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01464-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 7, 2022)
arises from Defendant's violations of the Video Privacy Protection
Act ("VPPA").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant does not
adequately disclose on the Gannett Sites, that subscribers'
personal identifying information are captured by tracking methods
utilized by the Defendant (referred to as the "Tracking Methods"),
and then transferred to Facebook. The Defendant shared personally
identifiable information ("PII") tied to the title, description, or
subject matter of prerecorded audio video material (the "Video
Watching Data") without valid consent, says the suit.

Subscribers of the Gannett Sites have been harmed as a result of
the Defendant's violations of the VPPA. The Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to immediately (i) remove
the Tracking Methods from the Gannett Sites or (ii) add, and
obtain, the appropriate consent from subscribers.

GANNETT CO., INC. operates as a local newspaper company. The
Company publishes news through storytelling and events that connect
readers and communities, as well as focuses on business practices
for sourcing, consumption, and waste. Gannett serves customers in
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          DELEEUW LAW LLC
          1301 Walnut Green Road
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 274-2180
          Facsimile: (302) 351-6905
          Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com

GITHUB INC: Sued Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------
J. DOE 1 and J. DOE 2, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GITHUB, INC., a Delaware corporation;
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; OPENAI, INC., a
Delaware nonprofit corporation; OPENAI, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership; OPENAI GP, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability
company; OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C., a Delaware limited
liability company; OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership; OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 3:22-cv-06823-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
Nov. 3, 2022), is brought against Defendants for violation of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA"); violation of the
Lanham Act; violation of Unfair Competition law; violation of the
California Consumer Privacy Act (the "CCPA"); and Breach of
Contract regarding the Suggested Licenses, GitHub's Privacy
Statement, and GitHub's Terms of Service, and the for their
Tortious Interference in Plaintiffs' Contractual Relationships;
Fraud, and Negligence regarding handling of sensitive data.

The Plaintiffs and the Class are owners of copyright interests in
materials made available publicly on GitHub that are subject to
various licenses containing conditions for use of those works (the
"Licensed Materials."). All the licenses at issue here (the
"Licenses") contain certain common terms (the "License Terms").

In June 2021, GitHub and OpenAI launched Copilot, an AI-based
product that promises to assist software coders by providing or
filling in blocks of code using AI. GitHub charges Copilot users
$10 per month or $100 per year for this service. Copilot ignores,
violates, and removes the Licenses offered by thousands—possibly
millions—of software developers, thereby accomplishing software
piracy on an unprecedented scale. Copilot outputs text derived from
Plaintiffs' and the Class's Licensed Materials without adhering to
the applicable License Terms and applicable laws. Copilot's output
is referred herein as "Output." On August 10, 2021, OpenAI debuted
its Codex product, which converts natural language into code and is
integrated into Copilot. (Copilot and Codex can be called either
AIs or MLs. Herein they will be referred to as AIs unless a
distinction is required.)

Though the Defendants have been cagey about what data was used to
train the AI, they have conceded that the training data includes
data in vast numbers of publicly accessible repositories on
GitHub,3 which include and are limited by Licenses. Among other
things, Defendants stripped Plaintiffs' and the Class's
attribution, copyright notice, and license terms from their code in
violation of the Licenses and Plaintiffs' and the Class's rights.
Defendants used Copilot to distribute the now-anonymized code to
Copilot users as if it were created by Copilot.

Copilot is run entirely on Microsoft's Azure cloud-computing
platform. Copilot often simply reproduces code that can be traced
back to open-source repositories or open-source licensees. Contrary
to and in violation of the Licenses, code reproduced by Copilot
never includes attributions to the underlying authors. GitHub and
OpenAI have offered shifting accounts of the source and amount of
the code or other data used to train and operate Copilot. They have
also offered shifting justifications for why a commercial AI
product like Copilot should be exempt from these license
requirements, often citing "fair use."

It is not fair, permitted, or justified. On the contrary, Copilot's
goal is to replace a huge swath of open source by taking it and
keeping it inside a GitHub-controlled paywall. It violates the
licenses that open-source programmers chose and monetizes their
code despite GitHub's pledge never to do so, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs published Licensed Materials they owned a copyright
interest in to at least one GitHub repository under one of the
Suggested Licenses.

GitHub sells, markets, and distributes Copilot throughout the
internet and other sales channels throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          Travis Manfredi, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                 czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
                 tmanfredi@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew Butterick, Esq.
          1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Phone: (323) 968-2632
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          Email: mb@buttericklaw.com


GULFPORT ENERGY: Dismissal of Rotunno's 2nd Amended Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOSEPH A. ROTUNNO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, ROBERT F.
WOODLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAVID M. WOOD, KERI CROWELL, QUENTIN R.
HICKS, Defendants-Appellees, GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 22-502 (2d Cir.), the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the dismissal of Rotunno's
second amended complaint.

Mr. Rotunno appeals from the Jan. 11, 2022 opinion and order of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Ramos,
J.), dismissing his second amended complaint (the "complaint") for
failure to state a claim, and the district court's Feb. 14, 2022
judgment.

Mr. Rotunno is the lead plaintiff for a putative class action on
behalf of investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired securities
in Gulfport Energy Corporation between May 3, 2019, and Feb. 27,
2020 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5.

The district court dismissed the complaint primarily on the basis
that it failed adequately to allege scienter. The Court of Appeals
agrees with the district court that the complaint has not alleged
facts that give rise to a strong inference of scienter and, thus,
affirms the court's dismissal of the Section 10(b) and 20(a)
claims.

According to the Court of Appeals, the complaint's motive and
opportunity allegations are insufficient to support scienter.
Further, the complaint concedes that the Defendants owned only a
small amount of Gulfport stock and does not allege that they sold
it during the Class Period. Consequently, they did not possess the
kind of personal financial motive that the Court of Appeals has
found sufficient, typically evidenced by insider trading for
significant financial gain.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals holds that the district court did
not err in concluding that the complaint fails plausibly to allege
motive and opportunity to commit fraud.

The Court of Appeals also finds that Rotunno's allegations do not
satisfy the recklessness standard, which in the securities fraud
context requires conduct that is highly unreasonable, representing
an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care. It is a
more compelling inference that Gulfport and its executives
negligently made an accounting error and subsequently corrected
their disclosures to the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
when they became aware of the error.

The complaint's references to an unrelated SEC investigation and
the resignations of executives do not add to the plausibility of
the scienter allegations, the Court of Appeals notes. While an SEC
investigation may provide relevant evidence, the investigation
identified in the complaint concerns unrelated conduct that
occurred prior to the Class Period.

Regarding the resignations, the complaint alleges that Crowell's
resignation was suspicious because it occurred in August 2019,
shortly before she would have been required to sign the third
quarter report containing financial results for the period ended
September 2019 that understated the impairment of Gulfport's
assets. The complaint describes other executives' resignations as a
response to shareholder pressure to change the composition of the
board. Rather than supporting an inference of fraudulent intent,
however, the Court of Appeals holds it is more persuasive to
conclude that these executives, including Crowell, resigned to
respond to the wishes of the shareholders, or for any number of
other reasons that executives change positions.

The Court of Appeals considers collectively the allegations that
Defendants were aware of contradictory underlying accounting data
and changes in commodities prices, failed to maintain adequate
internal controls, submitted false Sarbanes-Oxley certifications,
and committed a significant accounting error that violated GAAP.
But the most compelling inference from these allegations is
negligence, and the Court of Appeals cannot find scienter without
additional, concrete allegations of fraudulent intent. Because such
allegations are lacking, the Court of Appeals holds the district
court did not err in dismissing the complaint.

The Panel has considered Rotunno's remaining arguments and finds
them to be without merit. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirms
the judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Summary Order dated Oct. 27, 2022,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yjjbam5f from Leagle.com.

JEFFREY P. CAMPISI -- jcampisi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan, Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, in New York City, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.

ANTHONY J. LUCISANO -- anthony.lucisano@bakerbotts.com -- Brian C.
Kerr -- brian.kerr@bakerbotts.com -- David D. Sterling --
david.sterling@bakerbotts.com -- Amy Pharr Hefley --
amy.hefley@bakerbotts.com -- C. Frank Mace --
frank.mace@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP, in Houston, Texas,
for the Defendants-Appellees.


H&M HENNES: Lizama Sues Over Misleading Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Lizama and Marc Doten, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ LP, Case No.
4:22-cv-01170 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 3, 2022), is brought seeking to
remedy the unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and misleading business
practices of H&M with respect to the marketing and sale the
Products, which are sold throughout the State of Missouri, the
State of California, and the United States on behalf of persons
similarly situated who purchased H&M's "Conscious Choice"
Collection Products for personal, family, or household purposes.

In recent years, consumers have become significantly more aware of
and sensitive to the impact of clothing and household products on
the environment. Consumers seek, and will pay a premium for,
products that are responsibly made, including products that will
not negatively affect the environment. As a result, demand has
increased for "green" products that are sustainable and
environmentally friendly.

In an effort to increase profits and to gain an advantage over its
lawfully acting competitors, H&M falsely and misleadingly markets
and labels the Products "Conscious Choice" with a green hangtag
that claims that the Products are a "Conscious Choice," more
"sustainable" and environmentally friendly. Contrary to these
representations, the Products are plainly not a "Conscious Choice,"
more "sustainable" and environmentally friendly because the
Products are not made from sustainable and environmentally friendly
materials.

This marketing and labeling deceives consumers into believing that
they are receiving "conscious," more sustainable, and
environmentally friendly Products, but H&M's Products do not live
up to these claims. Conscious of consumers' increased interest in
more "green" products that are more sustainable and environmentally
friendly and willingness to pay more for products perceived to meet
this preference, H&M misleadingly, illegally, and deceptively seeks
to capitalize on these consumer "green" trends.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Products in reliance on H&M's
representations that these Products are a "Conscious Choice," more
"sustainable," and environmentally friendly. They would not have
purchased the Products if they had known that they were not made
from sustainable and/or environment friendly materials. Consumers
expect products that are marketed as a "Conscious Choice," more
"sustainable," and environmentally friendly to be made from
sustainable and environmentally friendly materials that are less
harmful and more beneficial to the environment. The Plaintiffs and
the Class reasonably believed H&M's false and misleading
representations. H&M knew or reasonably should have known that its
representations regarding the Products were false, deceptive,
misleading, and unlawful under Missouri law, California law, and
common law.

H&M misrepresented, and/or concealed, suppressed, or omitted
material facts in connection with the sale, distribution, and/or
advertisement of the Products. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members
paid a premium for the Products over comparable products that did
not purport to be a "Conscious Choice," more "sustainable," and
environmentally friendly. Given that Plaintiffs and Class Members
paid a premium for the Products based on H&M's representations that
they are a "Conscious Choice," more sustainable, and
environmentally friendly, Plaintiffs and the Class Members suffered
an injury in the amount of the purchase price and/or the premium
paid, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Products in reliance on Defendant's
representations.

H&M is a multinational clothing company built on direct-to-consumer
sales.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Orlowsky, Esq.
          ORLOWSKY LAW, LLC
          7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1910
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 725-5151
          Fax: (314) 455-7375
          Email: dan@orlowskylaw.com

          Adam M. Goffstein, Esq.
          GOFFSTEIN LAW, LLC
          7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1910
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 725-5151
          Fax: (314) 455-7278
          Email: adam@goffsteinlaw.com


HEIGHTS TOWER: Fails to Pay Construction Workers' OT, Moran Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAKOTA MORAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEIGHTS TOWER SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-03905-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, November 4, 2022) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendant seeking
unpaid wages, overtime wages, and all other available relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were employed
by the Defendant as hourly-paid and non-exempt employees to perform
the manual tasks associated with the construction and maintenance
of cell towers.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant deprived him and other
similarly situated workers of hundreds of hours of overtime premium
payments every year due to the Defendant's illegal pay practices.
Accordingly, the Defendant required them to travel to remote
jobsites that were located away from their home during their normal
work hours to work on the Defendant's cell tower construction and
maintenance projects; to stay overnight at hotels when performing
work at these remote jobsites; and to report to a shop prior to
traveling to the remote job locations. Although the Defendant would
pay them for travel time at their straight-time hourly rate, but
would not count travel time as hours worked for the purposes of
computing overtime premiums owed to them. As a result, despite
regularly working more than 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated workers were not paid overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says
the suit.

Heights Tower Service, Inc. provides cell tower construction and
maintenance services in multiple states. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher St. NW, Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Tel: (330) 470-4428
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

IMMUNOVANT INC: Continues to Defend Putative Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Immunovant Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the Company continues
to defend itself in a putative securities class action filed by
those who acquired the Company's securities between October 2, 2019
and February 1, 2021.


In February 2021, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the
Company’s securities between October 2, 2019 and February 1,
2021.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements
regarding the safety of batoclimab and seeks unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

On December 29, 2021, the U.S. District Court appointed a lead
plaintiff.

On February 1, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding RSL and the Company's directors and underwriters as
defendants, and asserting additional claims under Section 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a
putative class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company’s securities pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's follow-on public offering on or about September 2,
2020.

On March 15, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended
complaint. The Company and other defendants served motions to
dismiss the amended complaint on May 27, 2022.

The fully briefed motion to dismiss, including defendants' opening
briefs, lead plaintiff’s opposition, and defendants' replies were
filed with the court on September 9, 2022.

No hearing date has been set.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the case and
has not recorded a liability related to this lawsuit because, at
this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible
losses or determine whether an unfavorable outcome is either
probable or remote.

Immunovant, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
based in New York.

JUUL LABS: Auburn Enlarged Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
AUBURN ENLARGED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06961 (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.

Auburn Enlarged City School District case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Auburn Enlarged City School District is a school district with its
offices located at 78 Thornton Avenue in Auburn, New York.

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.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Court Consolidates Karp and Podmore Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidates the lawsuits titled RONALD H.
KARP, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. KIROMIC BIOPHARMA, INC., MAURIZIO CHIRIVA-INERNATI,
TONY TONTAT, GIANLUCA ROTINO, PIETRO BERSANI, AMERICO CICCHETTI,
MICHAEL NAGEL, JERRY SCHNEIDER, and THINKEQUITY LLC, Defendant; and
JOSEPH PODMORE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. KIROMIC BIOPHARMA, INC., MAURIZIO
CHIRIVA-INERNATI, TONY TONTAT, GIANLUCA ROTINO, PIETRO BERSANI,
AMERICO CICCHETTI, MICHAEL NAGEL, JERRY SCHNEIDER, and THINKEQUITY
LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 22 Civ. 6690 (VM), 22 Civ. 8433 (VM)
(S.D.N.Y.).

On Aug. 5, 2022,  Karp filed a complaint on behalf of himself and a
putative class against the Defendants alleging violations of the
securities laws. On Oct. 3, 2022, Podmore also filed a complaint on
behalf of himself and a putative class against the Defendants
alleging substantially similar violations of the securities laws as
Karp.

Then, on Oct. 4, 2022, both Karp and Podmore filed competing
motions to consolidate the cases and each sought appointment as
Lead Plaintiff and for approval of their selection of Lead
Counsel.

ThinkEquity filed a declaration opposing both Karp and Podmore's
motions and arguing that, instead, both e actions should be
consolidated with another case pending before Judge Analisa Torres,
captioned Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund Ltd. v. Kiromic
Biopharma, Inc., No. 22 Civ. 1927 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.). On Oct. 18,
2022, Karp filed a Response to Podmore's motion, and Podmore filed
a notice of non-opposition to Karp's.

Upon review of the complaints and other papers filed with the Court
in connection with the Karp and Podmore cases, the Court noted that
in all material respects the complaints describe the same or
substantially similar underlying events arising out of the same or
substantially similar operative facts, and assert the same or
substantially similar claims against the same or substantially
similar defendants.

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal rule of Civil Procedure 42, Judge
Marrero rules that the actions are consolidated for all purposed
into one action.

The Court also determines that consolidation with Sabby Volatility
would be inappropriate and denies the request. ThinkEquity has been
dismissed from Sabby Volatility, which has already proceeded to the
motion to dismiss stage. Further, Sabby Volatility is neither a
putative class action nor does it involve allegations of Exchange
Act violations, making it sufficiently different from the Karp and
Podmore actions such that consolidation would not promote judicial
economy

The consolidated Karp and Podmore actions will be referred to
herein as the "Consolidated Action." This Order will apply to the
Consolidated Action and to each case that is subsequently filed in
this Court that relates to the same subject matter as in the
Consolidated Action.

Every pleading in the Consolidated Action shall bear the following
Caption:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE
KIROMIC BIOPHARMA, No. 1:22-cv-6690 INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
CLASS ACTION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: [TITLE OF DOCUMENT]

The Court requests assistance of counsel in calling to the
attention of the Clerk of this Court the filing or transfer of any
case which might not properly be consolidated as part of this
Consolidated Action.

A Master Docket and Master File will be established for the
Consolidated Action. The Master File will be No. 1:22-cv-6690.

When a case that arises out of the subject matter of this
Consolidated Action is filed in the Court or transferred to this
Court from another court, the Clerk of this Court will, among other
things, file a copy of this Order in the separate file for such
action, and notify all counsel of record of the filing or transfer
of such action.

Each new case arising out of the subject matter of this
Consolidated Action that is filed in this Court or transferred to
this Court will be consolidated with the Action.

The Court appoints Ronald H. Karp, Ari Karp, and Ethan Karp
(together, the "Karp Family") as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to Section
21D(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995 ("PSLRA"). The Court finds that the Karp Family satisfies
the requisite factors under the PSLRA and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, and notes that Podmore agrees that the Karp Family
has the greatest financial interest in the matter, having suffered
the greatest financial loss of the moving parties.

The Lead Plaintiff, pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the
PSLRA, has selected and retained Gainey McKenna & Egleston, who is
approved as Lead Counsel for the Class in the Consolidated Action.

The Movant, through Lead Counsel, will file a consolidated amended
class action complaint (the "CAC") within 60 days of entry of this
order.

The Defendants will Answer or otherwise respond to the CAC within
45 days after its service.

If the Defendants file an Answer to the CAC, the Court directs the
parties to submit a joint letter, within thirty (30) days of the
date of the service of the Answer, addressing the following in
separate paragraphs: (1) a brief description of the case, including
the factual and legal bases for the claim(s) and defense(s); (2)
any contemplated motions; (3) the prospect for settlement; and (4)
whether the parties consent to proceed for all purposes before the
Magistrate Judge designated for this action.

The parties are also directed to submit a completed Case Management
Plan that provides that discovery is to be completed within four
months unless otherwise permitted by the Court. A model Case
Management Plan is available on the Court's website:
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-victor-marrero.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yck3epvw from Leagle.com.


L'OREAL USA: Hair-Straighteners Contain Toxic Chemicals, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN WILLIAMS; TABATHA TAGGART; TAMEKA M. MEADOWS; DEBORAH
TAYLOR; and DAPHNE VALENTINE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. L'OREAL USA, INC.; L'OREAL USA
PRODUCTS, INC.; SOFTSHEENCARSON, INC.; and SOFTSHEEN CARSON (W.I.),
INC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06110 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 3, 2022) alleges that
the Defendants' Toxic Hair-Straighteners and/or Relaxers are
adulterated with Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDC).

Accordingly, the presence of EDCs in the Defendants' Toxic
Hair-Straightener was not disclosed in the products' label, in
violation of state and federal law. EDCs, including
Di-2-ethylhexylphthalate (DEP), are known to increase a woman's
risk of: endometriosis, abnormalities in reproductive organs,
various cancers, altered nervous system and immune function,
respiratory problems, metabolic issues, diabetes, obesity,
cardiovascular problems, growth, neurological and learning
disabilities. The Toxic Hair-Straightener and/or Relaxers were not
adequately labeled and did not disclose that they contain EDCs,
says the suit.

L'Oreal manufactures and markets cosmetic products. [BN]


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Samuel Geisler, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 202-1010
          Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
          E-mail: sgeisler@awkolaw.com

LASHIFY INC: Adams Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LASHIFY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 160594950
(Fla. Cir., 9th Jud., November 3, 2022) is a class action complaint
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant made similar telephonic
sales calls to the Plaintiff and thousands of other individuals in
Florida in an attempt to promote its goods and services. The
Defendant's telephonic sales calls allegedly involved an automated
system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the
playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed. The
Defendant also failed to obtain the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals prior express written consent to receive such
telephonic sales calls, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls,
the Plaintiff and Class members were aggrieved. Thus, on behalf of
herself and Class members, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages,
costs, and attorney's fees from the Defendant. The Plaintiff also
seeks an injunction against future calls.

Lashify, Inc. offers innovative Lash System that make complex
beauty applications simple. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LE CAT USA: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Vega Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
SILVIO QUEZADA VEGA, and all others similarly situated pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 216(b) v. LE CAT USA, INC. f/k/a LECHA T USA,
INC., d/b/a RUMBAS EVENT RENTALS, a Florida corporation, GIMI GAS
SAN KASSIS, an individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-23626 (S.D. Fla., Nov.
4, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Mr. Vega was employed by the Defendant from March 2022 through
October 2022 to undertake a variety of tasks including driving
trucks, making deliveries and pick-ups, and installing tents for
events. He worked 50-60 hours per week, on average, and often much
more and was paid "time and a half" only for work later than 9 p.m.
on days when work until that hour was necessary, the Plaintiff
claims.

Le Cat is a party rental service located at 10505 NW 29th Terr., in
Doral, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (954) 745-0588
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
                  amy@nklegal.com
                  melanie@nklegal.com

LEPRINO FOODS: Dominguez PAGA Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTOPHER DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22C-0317, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Kings, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on November 4, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-01431-SKO to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to incorporate
all non-discretionary incentive wages in the regular rate of pay
used to calculate and pay sick pay wages and failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements in violation of the California
Private Attorneys General Act.

Leprino Foods Company is a manufacturer of dairy products,
headquartered in Denver, Colorado. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Sandra L. Rappaport, Esq.
         Lisa M. Pooley, Esq.
         Rachel J. Vinson, Esq.
         HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
         425 Market Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 777-3200
         Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
         E-mail: srappaport@hansonbridgett.com
                 lpooley@hansonbridgett.com
                 rvinson@hansonbridgett.com

MADCADI INC: Sanchez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Madcadi, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06695-MKB-CLP
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Madcadi provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.jacadi.us (hereinafter "Jacadi.us" or "the website").
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").

The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of
perfume on Jacadi.us. Additionally, the Plaintiff intended to visit
one of the Defendant`s physical locations. However, unless the
Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, the
Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to
independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a transaction on
Jacadi.us. By failing to make the website accessible to blind
persons, the Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements
under both state and federal law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendant controls and operates Jacadi.us in New York State and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor A. Saab, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB, ESQ.
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: 718-740-5060
          Fax: 718-709-5912
          Email: NoorASaabLaw@gmail.com


MANAGEABILITY: Faces Campbell Suit Over Unpaid Case Managers' OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. MANAGEABILITY INCORPORATED and FDI GROUP,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-12679-PDB-EAS (E.D. Mich., November 4,
2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Registered Nurse
Case Manager from about September 12, 2019 to January 18, 2022.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants classified her and other
similarly situated RN Case Managers as exempt from the requirements
of the FLSA. Although they worked more than 40 hours a week for the
Defendants, they were not paid proper overtime premium at the rate
of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Accordingly, the Defendants
did not provide them a guaranteed minimum salary, says the suit.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated RN Case
Managers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all damages to which they
may be entitled, as well as liquidated and multiple damages as
allowed by law, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief to
which they are entitled.

Manageability Incorporated and FDI Group provide case management
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angela L. Walker, Esq.
          Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
          221 North Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Tel: (734) 929-4313
          E-mail: walker@bwlawonline.com
                  hollander@bwlawonline.com

MATCH GROUP: Candelore Class Suit Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the trial court
still stayed the Candelore class suit on June 27, 2022.

On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed
against Tinder in state court in California. See Allan Candelore v.
Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles). The complaint principally alleges that Tinder
violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and
charging users age 30 and over a higher price than younger users
for subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service. The complaint
seeks certification of a class of California Tinder Plus
subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified amount.

In a related development, on June 21, 2019, in a substantially
similar putative class action asserting the same substantive claims
and pending in federal district court in California, the court
entered judgment granting final approval of a class-wide
settlement, the terms of which are not material to the Company. See
Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093 (Central District of
California). Because the approved settlement class in Kim subsumes
the proposed settlement class in Candelore, the judgment in Kim
would effectively render Candelore a single-plaintiff lawsuit.

On March 4, 2022, the trial court granted final approval of the
settlement agreement, the terms of which are not material to the
Company.

On March 31, 2022, two objectors to the Kim settlement, represented
by the plaintiff's counsel in Candelore, filed a notice of appeal
from the Kim judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On June 27, 2022, the trial court issued an order staying the class
claims in Candelore pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the Kim
appeal.

The Company believes that the allegations in the Candelore lawsuit
are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against
it.

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a
portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic,
OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match
Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and
Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was
incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match
Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


MATCH GROUP: Crutchfield Securities Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Match Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the plaintiff
withdrew its class certification motion on August 12, 2022, and
dismissed the Crutchfield securities class action with prejudice.

On October 3, 2019, a Former Match Group shareholder filed a
securities class action lawsuit in federal district court in Texas
against Former Match Group, its then Chief Executive Officer, and
its Chief Financial Officer, on behalf of a class of acquirers of
Former Match Group securities between August 6, 2019 and September
25, 2019. See Phillip R. Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc., Amanda
W. Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C (Northern
District of Texas). Invoking the allegations in the FTC lawsuit
described above, the complaint alleges (i) that defendants failed
to disclose to investors that Former Match Group induced customers
to buy and upgrade subscriptions using misleading advertisements,
that Former Match Group made it difficult for customers to cancel
their subscriptions, and that, as a result, Former Match Group was
likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (ii) that Former Match
Group lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and (iii)
that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about Former Match Group's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 12, 2022, plaintiff filed a stipulation withdrawing the
motion for class certification and dismissing the lawsuit with
prejudice.

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a
portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic,
OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match
Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and
Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was
incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match
Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


MATCH GROUP: Dismissal of Newman Class Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the plaintiff
filed an amended appeal notice with the Delaware Supreme Court
after the Delaware Court of Chancery after the court granted the
motion of defendants to dismiss the Newman derivative and
stockholder class action with prejudice.

On June 24, 2020, a Former Match Group shareholder filed a
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Former Match
Group and its board of directors, as well as Match Group, IAC
Holdings, Inc., and Barry Diller seeking to recover unspecified
monetary damages on behalf of the Company and directly as a result
of his ownership of Former Match Group stock in relation to the
separation of Former Match Group from its former majority
shareholder, Match Group.

The complaint alleges that the special committee established by
Former Match Group's board of directors to negotiate with Match
Group regarding the separation transaction was not sufficiently
independent of control from Match Group and Mr. Diller and that
Former Match Group board members failed to adequately protect
Former Match Group's interest in negotiating the separation
transaction, which resulted in a transaction that was unfair to
Former Match Group and its shareholders.

On January 21, 2021, the case was consolidated with other
shareholder actions, and an amended complaint was filed on April
14, 2021. See In Re Match Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 2020-0505-MTZ (Delaware Court of Chancery).

On September 1, 2022, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice.

On October 3, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended notice of appeal
with the Delaware Supreme Court.

The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are
without merit and will defend vigorously against it.

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a
portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic,
OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match
Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and
Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was
incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match
Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.

MATCH GROUP: Rubin and Ochoa Shareholder Derivative Suits Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Match Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the court has
stayed both the Rubin and Ochoa cases on May 16, 2022.

On February 25, 2021, another Match Group shareholder filed a
shareholder derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery
on behalf of nominal defendant Match Group, Inc. against its board
of directors seeking to recover unspecified monetary damages. See
Daniel Ochoa v. Match Group, Inc. et al, C.A. No. 2021-0158-MTZ
(Delaware Court of Chancery). The complaint alleges federal
securities laws violations and that Match Group's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by purportedly exercising
inadequate oversight to prevent the alleged issues giving rise to
the FTC complaint and by purportedly transacting in Match Group
stock while possessing knowledge of these issues.

On May 16, 2022, both the Rubin and Ochoa cases were stayed until
the motion for class certification is decided in the Crutchfield
litigation.

The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are
without merit and will defend vigorously against them.

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a
portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic,
OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match
Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and
Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was
incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match
Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


MATTRESS FIRM: Valencia PAGA Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CARMEN VALENCIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC. and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 22CV403324, 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 November 4, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-06875-NC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
California Private Attorneys General Act.

Mattress Firm, Inc. is an American mattress store chain,
headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Annie Lau, Esq.
         Brandon K. Kahoush, Esq.
         Jenna M. Rogenski, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         One Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 490-9000
         Facsimile: (415) 490-9001
         E-mail: alau@fisherphillips.com
                 bkahoush@fisherphillips.com
                 jrogenski@fisherphillips.com

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan Report Excluded in 518 Restaurant Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 518 Restaurant Corp. v.
American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc., Case No.
1:05-cv-05884 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo
K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions
of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,
the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66
and 268, and otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The 518 Restaurant case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation.
The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

American Express provides travels and financial services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EslaRLat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excltuded in Spoke Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spoke v. Visa USA, Inc.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-05881 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the Hon.
Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct
Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and
opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412,
footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Spoke case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hEdYcxat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in 7-Eleven Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 7-Eleven, Inc. et al v.
Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-05746 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 21,
2013),  the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The 7-Eleven case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3X0kOcjat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Aldi Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aldi Inc. v. Visa Inc.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04568 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 14, 2018), the Hon.
Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct
Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and
opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412,
footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Aldi case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hEabfiat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in AMUI Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Accor Management US Inc.
et al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-04616 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Aug. 12, 2019), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an
order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Accor case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3O2tuLlat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Animal Land Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Animal Land, Inc. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05074 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Animal Land case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Animal Land was established in 1998 and has been transporting pets
ever since.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fVDeupat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Avon Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Avon Products, Inc. et al.
v. Visa, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02166 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May
13, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting
in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Avon case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3X9jHHFat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BAF Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baltimore Avenue Foods,
LLC v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05080 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Baltimore case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ttYHxzat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BGI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Broken Ground, Inc. v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05082 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Broken case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tvld93at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Bishara Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bishara v. Visa USA, Inc.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-05883 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 15, 2005), the Hon.
Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct
Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and
opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412,
footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Bishara case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UV0Yh4at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BKS Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BKS, Inc. et al., v. Visa,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-02264 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 1, 2009),
the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part
Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report
and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412,
footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The BKS case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GgveP8at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Boyd Gaming Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boyd Gaming Corporation et
al v. VISA INC. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01325 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
March 16, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Boyd case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TpM2Gsat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in BWL Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bonte Wafflerie, LLC v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05083 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct
Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and
opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412,
footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Bonte case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WX6q4Dat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Camp Grounds
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Camp Grounds Coffee, LLC,
et al., v. Visa, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03401 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed June 16, 2021), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an
order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Camp Grounds case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Ggw2n8at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in CenturyLink
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CenturyLink
Communications, LLC, et al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-06318 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 7, 2019), the Hon. Judge Margo
K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions
of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,
the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66
and 268, and otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The CenturyLink  case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

CenturyLink provides telecommunication services.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3toTzumat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in CFA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Connecticut Food
Association, Inc. (CFA) v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No.
1:05-cv-05880 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo
K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions
of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,
the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66
and 268, and otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The CFA case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

CFA is a non-profit, state-wide trade association representing
Connecticut's grocery community.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WSUp0hat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in DGC Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dollar General
Corporation, et al., v. VISA U.S.A. INC., et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-05988 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 13, 2017), the Hon. Judge Margo
K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions
of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,
the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66
and 268, and otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Dollar General case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation.
The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Dollar General is an American chain of variety stores headquartered
in Goodlettsville, Tennessee.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3DWwaoYat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in DOI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Discount Optics, Inc. v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc.., Case No. 1:05-cv-05870 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec.
14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting
in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Discount case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GtGhVxat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Dunhill Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dunhill Asset Services V
LLC v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03791 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Aug. 19, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Dunhill case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UDuHv1at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in E-Z Mart Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. et
al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-05352 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Sept. 30, 2013), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The E-Z Mart case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

E-Z Mart owns and operates gasoline filling stations. The Company
retails gasoline, diesel fuel, and petroleum products.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UDuhVtat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in East Goshen Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as East Goshen Pharmacy, Inc.
v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05073 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct
26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting
in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The East Goshen case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UvSH3dat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Esdacy Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Esdacy, Inc. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-05583 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 17,
2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Esdacy case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UL2sugat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Exxon Mobil Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Exxon Mobil Corporation v.
Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02495 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 4,
2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The ExxonMobil case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

ExxonMobil is an American multinational oil and gas corporation
headquartered in Irving, Texas.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WWHESfat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Fairmont Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fairmont Orthopedics &
Sports Medicine, PA v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05076
(E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie
entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion
to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to
paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence
of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and
otherwise denying the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Fairmont case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tpQOJCat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Fareway Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fareway Stores, Inc. et al
v. Visa, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01483 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March
20, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting
in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Fareway case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tnnKSGat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Fitlife Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fitlife Health Systems of
Arcadia, Inc. v. Mastercard International Incorporated et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-05153 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov .03, 2005), the Hon. Judge
Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions
of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,
the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66
and 268, and otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Fitlife case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TtUkgpat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in G.E.S. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.E.S. Bakery, Inc. v.
Visa USA, Inc, Case No. 1:05-cv-05879 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The G.E.S. case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3E7gaAyat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Grubhub Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GrubHub Holdings Inc., et
al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06555 (E.D.N.Y., Filed),
the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part
Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report
and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412,
footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Grubhub case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Grubhub is an American online and mobile prepared food ordering and
delivery platform.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TCBZhgat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Halcyon Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Halcyon Loan Trading Fund
LLC v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06708 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Dec. 2, 2021), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Halcyon case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Halcyon is a hedge fund manager.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3trbwIXat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Hertz Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hertz Corporation, et al.,
v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03531 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
June 13, 2017), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card Interchange
Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The lead case is
Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Hertz Corporation is an American car rental company based in
Estero, Florida.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WWVDHGat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Home Depot Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Home Depot, Inc. et
al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-05507 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Oct. 6, 2016), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Home Depot case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail
corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances,
and services.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3E16pnzat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Hyman Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hyman v. VISA
International Service Association, Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05866
(E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 15, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie
entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion
to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to
paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,  the second sentence
of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and
otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Hyman case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GefTigat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Intuit Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Intuit Inc., et al., v.
Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01175 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 8,
2021), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Intuit case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Intuit is an American business software company that specializes in
financial software. The company is headquartered in Mountain View,
California.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3A6ZN5Rat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Jasperson
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jasperson v. Visa U.S.A.,
Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05070 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the
Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct
Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and
opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412,
footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Jasperson case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UTneaLat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in JHI Case
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jetro Holding, Inc. et
al., v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04520 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Sept. 23, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an
order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Jetro case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Jetro Holdings. operates as a holding company. The Company, through
its subsidiaries, offers beverages, dry groceries, and tobacco
products.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fVsvA8at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Kroger Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kroger Co. v. Visa U.S.A.,
Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05078 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the
Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct
Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and
opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412,
footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Kroger case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TN5uNHat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Lakeshore Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lakeshore Interiors v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc.,  Case No. 1:05-cv-05081 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct.
26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting
in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Lakeshore case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Lakeshore is a Wisconsin based interiors design company
specializing in gffice furniture for all commercial interiors.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AyNujlat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Lanning Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lanning et al v. Visa,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02360 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 28,
2021), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Lanning case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AanSsIat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Leeber Cohen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leeber Cohen, M.D. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05878 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Cohen case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hmUrNnat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Lombardo Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lombardo Bros., Inc. v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05882 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Lombardo case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UUNXEbat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Luby's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luby's Fuddruckers
Restaurants, LLC v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-04555
(E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 03, 2017), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie
entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion
to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to
paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence
of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and
otherwise denying the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Luby's case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3g6ZaCyat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in MCI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Cetta, Inc. v.
Visa U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-01831 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 14,
2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Cetta Inc case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TrJM1mat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Meijer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Meijer, Inc. et al v. Visa
U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04131 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug.
29, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting
in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Meijer case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3NZFtZYat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in MTA Case
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA), et al., v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-04256 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July 23, 2019), the
Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct
Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and
opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412,
footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The MTA case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

MTA provides local and express bus, subway, and commuter rail
service in Greater New York.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Gl4wEWat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in NACS Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as National Association of
Convenience Stores, et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-04521 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 23, 2005), the Hon. Judge
Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions
of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,
the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66
and 268, and otherwise denying the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The NACS case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hzQ0yXat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in NGA Case
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as National Grocers
Association (NGA), et al., v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-05207 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo
K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions
of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,
the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66
and 268, and otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The NGA case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

NGA is the national trade association representing the retail and
wholesale grocers.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hD3I4eat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Old Jericho
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Old Jericho Enterprise,
Inc. et al., v. Visa, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02394
(E.D.N.Y., Filed May 29, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie
entered an order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion
to exclude portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to
paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,  the second sentence
of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and
otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Old Jericho case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XaSjsPat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Parkway Corp Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parkway Corp. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05077 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Parkway case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Parkway is a family-owned business in full-service real estate and
parking ownership & management across North America.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3g5BjTNat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Photos Etc. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Photos Etc. Corp. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05071 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Photos Etc case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tvkEMtat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Pizzabov Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pizzabov, Inc. et. al., v.
Visa International Service Association et. al., Case No.
2:20-cv-01517 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 23, 2020), , the Hon. Judge
Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions
of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,
the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66
and 268, and otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Pizzabov case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3twThSdat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in PLI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Performance Labs, Inc. v.
American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc., Case No.
1:05-cv-05869 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 19, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo
K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct Action
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and opinions
of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,
the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of paragraphs 66
and 268, and otherwise denying the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Performance Labs case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation.
The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Performance manufactures nutritional health supplements. The
Company's products include GarliMax, AcidFree, and Vitalert.

American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. provides
travels and financial services. The Company offers credit cards for
consumers and businesses, consumer travel services, travelers
checks, and point of sale, back-office, marketing products, and
services for merchants.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TuowYPat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Publix Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04677 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Oct. 04, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Publix case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Publix is an employee-owned American supermarket chain
headquartered in Lakeland, Florida.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3g1SUMwat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in QVC Case
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as QVC, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A.
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00592 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 22,
2007), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The QVC case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

QVC is an American free-to-air television network, and flagship
shopping channel specializing in televised home shopping, owned by
Qurate Retail Group.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3O227ksat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Raley Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raley's v. Visa U.S.A.
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04799 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 12,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Raley's case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hBpdlRat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Rue21 Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rue21, inc v. Visa Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07018 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 2, 2014), the
Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in part Direct
Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the report and
opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412,
footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Rue21 case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Rue21 is an American specialty retailer of women's & men's casual
apparel and accessories headquartered in the Pittsburgh suburb of
Warrendale, Pennsylvania.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3NZXMONat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Seaway Gas Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Seaway Gas & Petroleum,
Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04728 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Oct. 06, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an
order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Seaway Gas case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Seaway Gas provides gasoline service stations from Cleveland,
Ohio.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3O3mv4Xat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in SuperValu Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Supervalu Inc. v. Visa
U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04650 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Sept.
30, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting
in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The case SuperValu is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

SuperValu was an American wholesaler and retailer of grocery
products. The company, formerly headquartered in the Minneapolis
suburb of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, had been in business since
1926.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fYT1IEat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Tabu Salon Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tabu Salon & Spa, Inc. v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05072 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Tabu case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Tabu is full-service salon located on a little farm in Bucks
County, Pennsylvania.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tp2rjFat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Target Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Target Corporation et al.,
v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-05745 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct.
21, 2013), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting
in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Target case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WWRL9wat no extra charge.[CC]


MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Verizon Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Verizon Sourcing LLC, et.
al., v. Visa, Inc. et. al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05882 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Oct. 17, 2019), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Verizon case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Verizon specializes in the distribution and delivery of press
releases, financial disclosures and multimedia content to the media
and general public.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UAj8ogat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Wakefern Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wakefern Food Corporation
v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-05765 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Oct. 25, 2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Wakefern case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Wakefern is an American company that was founded in 1946 and is
based in Keasbey, New Jersey. It is a retailers' cooperative group
of supermarkets.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3DVHIsMat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded in Westgate Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Westgate Resorts, LTD. et
l V. Visa, U.S.A., INC. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05567 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Oct. 08, 2019), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an
order granting in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
portions of the report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs
204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the second sentence of footnote
2781, and portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denying
the motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Westgate case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EmnuZBat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report Excluded Walt Disney Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Walt Disney Company v.
Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04489 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July 29,
2022), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting in
part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The case Disney is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Disney is an American multinational mass media and entertainment
conglomerate headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in
Burbank, California.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EsjpE9at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report in Bi-Lo Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bi-Lo, LLC et al v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-02532 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May
22, 2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting
in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The BI-LO case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

BI-LO was an American supermarket chain owned by Southeastern
Grocers, headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WVXWe1at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Portions of Kaplan's Report in Contrarian Funds Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Contrarian Funds, L.L.C.
v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01519 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Mar
23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting
in part Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the
report and opinions of Mr. Kaplan as to paragraphs 204, 324 to 328,
412, footnote 88,  the second sentence of footnote 2781, and
portions of paragraphs 66 and 268, and otherwise denies the
motion.

  -- The Court denies the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motions to
     exclude the report and opinions of Mr. Harvey, Professor
     Kahn, and Dr. Teece.

  -- The Court grants the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
     exclude part of paragraph 42 of Professor Hubbard's report
     and paragraphs 204, 324 to 328, 412, footnote 88, the
     second sentence of footnote 2781, and portions of
     paragraphs 66 and 268 of Mr. Kaplan's report. The Direct
     Action Plaintiffs' motions to exclude are otherwise denied.

  -- Finally, the Court does not exclude these paragraphs as
     contrary to Hanover Shoe. In that case, the Supreme Court
     affirmed the Court of Appeals' rejection of the antitrust
     defendant's "passing-on" defense that "the illegal
     overcharge during the damage period was reflected in the
     price charged" by the plaintiff to its customers.

  -- Accordingly, the Court does not exclude Mr. Kaplan's pass-
     on opinions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Contrarian case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fXklanat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. 47 West
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 47 West 55th Rest. Inc. v.
Visa U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-01829 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 14,
2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The 47 West case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ULboQ2at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Animal Land
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Animal Land, Inc. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05074 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards.

The Animal Land case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Aap3IEat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Avon
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as  Avon Products, Inc. et
al. v. Visa, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02166 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
May 13, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Avon suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.


Avon is an American-British multinational cosmetics, skin care,
fragrance and personal care company, based in London. It sells
directly to the public.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3O2aQTRat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Bishara
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bishara v. Visa USA, Inc.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-05883 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 15, 2005), the Hon.
Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Bishara case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WZb8z1at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. DGC
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dollar General
Corporation, et al., v. VISA U.S.A. INC., et al., Case
No.1:17-cv-05988 (E.D.N.Y., Filed: Oct. 13, 2017), the Hon. Judge
Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Dollar General case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation.
The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Dollar General Corporation is an American chain of variety stores
headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. A

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Eq17n2at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Home Depot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Home Depot, Inc. et al.,
v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-05507 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct.
6, 2016), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Home Depot case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail
corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances,
and services.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EqJsM9at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Walt Disney
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Walt Disney Company v.
Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04489 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July 29,
2022), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Walt Disney suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

The Walt Disney Company, commonly known as Disney, is an American
multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate
headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank,
California.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hBk39zat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Westgate
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Westgate Resorts, LTD., et
al., V. Visa, U.S.A., INC. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05567
(E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 8, 2019), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie
entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Westgate case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Westgate Resorts is an American timeshare resort company founded by
David A. Siegel in 1982.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GfwQZHat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2913: Campbell-Savona Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL-SAVONA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06949 (N.D. Cal., November 7,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.

Campbell-Savona Central School District case has been consolidated
in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Campbell-Savona Central School District is a school district with
its offices located at 8455 County Route 125 in Campbell, New
York.

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.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2913: Catskill Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
---------------------------------------------------------------
CATSKILL CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06911 (N.D. Cal., November 4, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.

Catskill Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Catskill Central School District is a school district with its
offices located at 343 W. Main Street in Catskill, New York.

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.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2913: Causes Youth Health Crisis in N.Y., Charlotte Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLOTTE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06954 (N.D. Cal., November 7,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.

Charlotte Valley Central School District case has been consolidated
in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Charlotte Valley Central School District is a school district with
its offices located at 15611 State Highway 23 in Davenport, New
York.

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.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Afton Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
AFTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06960 (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.

Afton Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Afton Central School District is a school district with its offices
located at 29 Academy Street in Afton, New York.

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.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2913: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Arkport Central Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARKPORT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06965-WHO (N.D. Cal., November 7,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.

Arkport Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Arkport Central School District is a school district with its
offices located at 35 East Avenue in Arkport, New York.

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.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2913: Faces Deposit Central Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPOSIT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06959-WHO (N.D. Cal., November 7,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.

Deposit Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Deposit Central School District is a school district with its
offices located at 171 Second Street in Deposit, New York.

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.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2913: Hancock Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
HANCOCK CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06955 (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.

Hancock Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Hancock Central School District is a school district with its
offices located at 67 Education Lane in Hancock, New York.

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.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2913: Massena Central Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
MASSENA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06958-WHO (N.D. Cal., November 7,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.

Massena Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Massena Central School District is a school district with its
offices located at 84 Nightengale Ave. in Massena, New York.

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.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2913: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Schuyler Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCHUYLER-STEUBEN-CHEMUNG-TIOGA-ALLEGANY BOARD OF COOPERATIVE
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-06898 (N.D. Cal., November 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.

Schuyler-Steuben-Chemung-Tioga-Allegany Board of Cooperative
Educational Services case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN
RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
William H. Orrick.

Schuyler-Steuben-Chemung-Tioga-Allegany Board of Cooperative
Educational Services is an educational institution with its offices
located at 9579 Vocational Drive in Painted Post, New York.

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.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2913: Stamford Central Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
STAMFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06894-WHO (N.D. Cal., November 4,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.

Stamford Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Stamford Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 1 River Road in Stamford, New York.

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.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2913: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Edmeston Central Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDMESTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06956-WHO (N.D. Cal., November 7,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.

Edmeston Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Edmeston Central School District is a school district with its
offices located at 11 North Street in Edmeston, New York.

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.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2913: Waverly Central Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WAVERLY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06879 (N.D. Cal., November 4, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.

Waverly Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Waverly Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 15 Frederick Street in Waverly, New York.

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.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

MINDBODY INC: $3.5MM in Fees and Costs Awarded in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York awards Lead Counsel attorneys' fees in the
amount of $2,925,000, and $560,715.36 in payment of Litigation
Expenses in the lawsuit styled IN RE MINDBODY, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-08331-VEC (S.D.N.Y.).

The matter came on for hearing on Oct. 27, 2022, on Lead Counsel's
motion for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses,
including an award to Co-Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of March 3,
2022.

Notice of Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and
payment of expenses was given to all Settlement Class Members, who
could be identified with reasonable effort, and they were given the
opportunity to object by Oct. 14, 2022. There have been no
objections.

Lead Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of
$2,925,000, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement
Fund (i.e., 30% of the Settlement Fund) and $560,715.36 in payment
of Litigation Expenses, plus accrued interest, which sums the Court
finds to be fair and reasonable.

In making this award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid
from the Settlement Fund, the Court has considered and found that:

   (a) The Settlement has created a fund of $9,750,000 in cash
       that has been paid into escrow pursuant to the terms of
       the Stipulation, and that numerous Settlement Class
       Members, who submit valid Claim Forms, will benefit from
       the Settlement that occurred because of the efforts of
       counsel;

   (b) The fee sought by Lead Counsel has been reviewed and
       approved as reasonable by Co-Lead Plaintiffs,
       sophisticated institutional investors that oversaw the
       prosecution and resolution of the Action;

   (c) 22,387 copies of the Notice were mailed to potential
       Settlement Class Members and nominees stating that Lead
       Counsel would apply for attorneys' fees in an amount not
       to exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund and Litigation
       Expenses in an amount not to exceed $800,000;

   (d) The Action required the navigation of highly challenging
       and complex issues concerning damages, loss causation,
       falsity, scienter, and materiality within the scope of
       Mindbody's business and a merger, as well as issues
       related to class certification, such as whether the fraud
       on the market presumption of reliance could be applied in
       this case;

   (e) Had Lead Counsel not achieved the Settlement, there would
       remain a significant risk that Co-Lead Plaintiffs and the
       other members of the Settlement Class may have recovered
       less or nothing from the Defendants;

   (f) Lead Counsel conducted the litigation and achieved the
       Settlement with skill, perseverance, and diligent
       advocacy;

   (g) The attorneys' fees awarded and Litigation Expenses to be
       paid from the Settlement Fund are fair and reasonable
       under the circumstances of this case and consistent with
       awards made within this District;

   (h) Public policy concerns favor the award of attorneys' fees
       and expenses in securities class action litigation; and

   (i) Lead Counsel expended more than 6,500 hours with a
       lodestar value of $3,254,648.50, to achieve the
       Settlement, representing a substantial effort.

Co-Lead Plaintiffs Walleye Trading LLC and Walleye Opportunities
Master Fund Ltd. are collectively awarded $8,000 from the
Settlement Fund in connection with their reasonable costs and
expenses directly related to their representation of the Settlement
Class, pursuant to Section 21D(a)(4) of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C.
Section78u-4(a)(4).

Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court's approval of any
attorneys' fees and expense application, including that of Lead
Counsel, will in no way disturb or affect the finality of the
Judgment.

Exclusive jurisdiction is retained over the Parties and the
Settlement Class Members for all matters relating to this Action,
including the administration, interpretation, effectuation, or
enforcement of the Stipulation and this Order.

In the event that the Settlement is terminated or the Effective
Date of the Settlement otherwise fails to occur, this Order will be
rendered null and void to the extent provided by the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4f8jw4jy from Leagle.com.


MINTO DEVELOPMENT: Faces Sica RICO Class Suit Over Loan Rates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brenden Sica, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Minto Development Corporation, Minto Financial
d/b/a Minto Money, Benhti Economic Development Corporation, Douglas
William Isaacson, and Clarity Services, Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-06480 (D.N.J., Nov. 4, 2022) alleges that Minto Money lends
to New Jersey residents at rates exceeding 600% annually -- more
than 37 times the maximum lawful rate in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

To evaluate potential borrowers, Minto Money obtains consumer
reports from Clarity, a consumer reporting agency which tailors its
reports to the subprime lending industry. On July 11, 2022, Mr.
Sica obtained a loan in the principal amount of $1,100.00 from
Minto Money (the Minto Money Loan). The Minto Money Loan carried an
annual interest rate of 653.65%, meaning that Mr. Sica was to pay
$5,877.39 over a ten-month period for a $1,100 loan, says the
suit.

Minto Financial dba Minto Money is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Benhti Economic Development Corporation (BEDCO), a sovereign
economic arm, enterprise and instrumentality of, and created under
the laws of and for the benefit of, the Native Village of Minto, a
federally recognized sovereign American Indian tribe in Alaska.

Bedco claims to be the owner of an online payday lending website
Minto Money, which operates from www.mintomoney.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP A.P.C
          3000 Atrium Way, Suite 200
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 259-4800
          E-mail: ross@kazlg.com
                  ak@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com

                - and –

          Bryan Geiger, Esq.
          SERAPH LEGAL, P.A.
          1614 N. 19th Street
          Tampa, FL 33605
          Telephone: (813) 567-1230

MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Hold Objector Helfand in Contempt Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denies as moot the Plaintiffs' motion
to hold Objector Steven Helfand in contempt in the lawsuit titled
In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, Case No. 20 Civ.
5914 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.).

On Aug. 5, 2022, in a lengthy bench decision, the Court approved
(1) the proposed class action settlement; and (2) attorneys' fees,
costs, and service awards, issuing separate orders as to these
subjects. On Aug. 17, 2022, Steven Helfand, a pro se objector and
non-party member of the Class, filed a notice of appeal. No other
putative class member appealed.

On Sept. 28, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
order that Mr. Helfand post an appeal bond of $25,000 as a
condition of proceeding with his appeal. In so ordering, the Court
recognized the considerable prejudice caused to the settlement
class by Mr. Helfand's appeal, which the Court viewed as
meritless.

In particular, the Court recognized that, given the nature of the
remedies that the settlement afforded participating class
members--which include payment of cash benefits and the provision
of Aura Financial Shield coverage--it would in practice be
impossible to restore the status quo ante in the event that the
settlement terms were implemented but the settlement thereafter
overturned on appeal. Accordingly, the Court recognized, Mr.
Helfand's appeal stands to materially delay provision of relief to
the class.

On Oct. 14, 2022, Mr. Helfand appealed the Court's order requiring
him to post the appeal bond.

On Oct. 20, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved to hold Mr. Helfand in
contempt, for failure to timely comply with the order to post the
appeal bond. The Plaintiffs requested that the Court impose
monetary sanctions in the amount of $50,000, and an award of
attorney's fees to settlement class counsel. On Oct. 25, 2022, the
Court issued an order stating that it was considering a different
form of contempt sanction--a coercive, rather than punitive,
sanction, under which Mr. Helfand, beginning Nov. 4, 2022, would be
ordered to pay $250/day to the Clerk of this Court until either
posting such a bond or dismissing his appeal.

On Oct. 25, 2022, Mr. Helfand filed a notice reflecting that he has
now complied with the Court's order to impose bond. He attached a
domestic wire transfer authorization indicating that he had
transferred $25,000 to the Clerk of this Court. He further asked
that the Court to deny the Plaintiffs' contempt motion and excuse
him from the obligation to appear at the Nov. 2, 2022 conference.
He argued that he understood the compliance date for posting bond
to be Oct. 26, 2022, on the ground that, although the bond order
had been served on him by the Plaintiffs by first class mail on
Oct. 3, 2022, he had not received the order until Oct. 6, 2022.

On Oct. 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a reply in further support
of contempt. They noted that the timetable for Mr. Helfand to
comply with the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 order imposing bond was set
by the entry of that order, that the Sept. 28 order had timely been
entered on the docket, that Mr. Helfand had been obliged to monitor
the docket, and that Mr. Helfand had been capable of timely filing
his appeal.

Judge Engelmayer finds that the Plaintiffs are correct that Mr.
Helfand failed to timely comply with the order to post bond. As the
Plaintiffs note, the Sept. 28, 2022 order required Mr. Helfand to
comply with the bond requirement within 20 days of the order, and
did not require the Plaintiffs to serve the order upon Mr. Helfand
as a predicate to compliance. The deadline for Mr. Helfand's
compliance was, thus, Oct. 18, 2022.

Mr. Helfand does not recite any sound basis for failing to meet
that deadline. The Court reaffirms why imposition of a bond was
necessary here, including the substantial costs, inconvenience, and
delay that Mr. Helfand's appeal is likely to visit upon the
settlement class.

Nonetheless, with Mr. Helfand having now posted the required bond,
a civil contempt sanction is no longer warranted as a means to
bring about his compliance. And the Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated that Mr. Helfand's delay in posting the bond visited
any out-of-pocket costs on them, let alone the $50,000 that the
Plaintiffs urge Mr. Helfand to be required to pay.

Accordingly, the Court denies as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to
hold Mr. Helfand in contempt, declines to impose a monetary
sanction on Mr. Helfand for his belated compliance, and cancels as
unnecessary the emergency conference scheduled for Nov. 2, 2022.

The Court does take this opportunity to encourage the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to hear and resolve Mr.
Helfand's appeal expeditiously, in the interest--assuming
affirmance--of enabling the class to obtain the benefits of the
settlement as promptly as possible.

Although Mr. Helfand remains charged with monitoring the docket of
this case, the Court further directs the Plaintiffs to furnish a
copy of this order to Mr. Helfand forthwith and to file a notice of
such service on the docket.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/53jv98my from Leagle.com.


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: 9th Circuit Affirms Mulquin Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nektar Therapeutics disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the Mulquin action on May 19, 2022.

In October 2018, we and certain of our executives were named in a
putative securities class action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No.
18-cv-06607, which we refer to as the Mulquin action). The Mulquin
plaintiffs challenged public statements Nektar made, between
January 2017 and June 2018, about the clinical trials of
bempegaldesleukin.

In December 2020, the district court dismissed the action with
prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in January 2021
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On May 19, 2022, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of all claims against the defendants.

Nektar Therapeutics develops drug candidates for cancer,
auto-immune disease, and chronic pain in the United States. Nektar
Therapeutics was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.



NELNET SERVICING: Kitzler Suit Transferred to D. Nebraska
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Neil Kitzler, an individual, and on behalf of
classes of similarly situated individuals v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC,
Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-06550 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
on Nov. 3, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-03241-JMG-CRZ to
the proceeding.

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

Nelnet -- https://nelnetinc.com/ -- is the largest operating
businesses engage in student loan servicing, tuition payment
processing and school information systems, and communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          Lirit Ariella King, Esq.
          Marcus Bradley, Esq.
          BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Phone: (805) 270-7100
          Fax: (805) 618-2939
          Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                 lking@bradleygrombacher.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James Monagle, Esq.
          MULLEN, COUGHLIN LAW FIRM LLC
          426 West Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200
          Devon, PA 19087
          Phone: (267) 930-4770
          Fax: (267) 930-4771
          Email: anowell@mullen.law


NRG ENERGY: Two TCPA Cases Against Direct Energy Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that two
putative class actions involving alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act are pending against Direct
Energy.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") Cases — In the cases
set forth below, referred to as the TCPA Cases, such actions
involve consumers alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended, by receiving calls, texts or
voicemails without consent in violation of the federal
Telemarketing Sales Rule, and/or state counterpart legislation. The
underlying claims of each case are similar. The Company denies the
allegations asserted by plaintiffs and intends to vigorously defend
these matters. These matters were known and accrued for at the time
of the acquisition.

There are two putative class actions pending against Direct Energy:


(1) Holly Newman v. Direct Energy, LP (D. Md Sept 2021) - Direct
Energy filed its Motion to Dismiss asserting the ruling in the
Brittany Burk v. Direct Energy (S.D. Tex. Feb 2019) preempts the
Plaintiff's ability to file suit based on the same facts. The Court
denied Direct Energy's motion stating the Court does not have the
benefit of all of the facts that were in front of the Burk court to
issue a similar ruling. On October 19, 2022, Direct Energy filed a
Motion to Transfer Venue asking the Court to transfer the case to
the Southern District where the Buck case was filed. Direct Energy
will await the court's ruling before moving forward with written
discovery; and

(2) Matthew Dickson v. Direct Energy (N.D. Ohio Jan. 2018) - The
case was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal to the Sixth
Circuit based on the unconstitutionality of the TCPA during the
period from 2015-2020. The Sixth Circuit found the TCPA was in
effect during that period and remanded the case back to the trial
court. Direct Energy refiled its motions along with supplements. On
March 25, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of
Direct Energy and dismissed the case. Dickson appealed, and the
parties are in the briefing process.

NRG Energy, Inc. is an American energy company, headquartered in
Houston, Texas. It was formerly the wholesale arm of Northern
States Power Company, which became Xcel Energy, but became
independent in 2000. NRG Energy is involved in energy generation
and retail electricity.

O'GARA COACH: Denial of Bid for Arbitration in Towell Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One,
affirms the denial of the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration
in the lawsuit entitled SELENA TOWELL, Plaintiff and Respondent v.
O'GARA COACH COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case
No. B310742 (Cal. App.).

Before Plaintiff and Respondent Selena Towell began working at a
car dealership owned by Defendant and Appellant Westlake Coach Co.,
LLC, an affiliate of Defendant and Appellant O'Gara Coach Co., LLC,
she digitally signed an employment application that contained a
clause requiring her to pursue any claims against the Defendants in
individual arbitration.

Two days later, Towell signed an at-will employment agreement in
which Westlake offered her an option to opt out of a waiver of her
right to pursue class actions in court. She checked the box
indicating that she opted out of the class action waiver. Two weeks
after that, on her first day on the job, Towell physically signed
the employment application, certifying that she was the person, who
submitted the application in the first place.

Ms. Towell subsequently filed a class-action complaint against the
Defendants, and the question in this case is which of the two
documents she signed controls. The trial court concluded that the
opt-out provision in the at-will employment agreement superseded
the arbitration agreement in the employment application, and on
that basis denied the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The
Defendants contend this was error, but the Appellate Court
disagrees and affirms.

On Dec. 23, 2019, Towell filed a class action complaint against
O'Gara, alleging several violations of employment law. She claimed
that she worked on behalf of O'Gara as a lease retention manager at
a car dealership in Thousand Oaks from July 18, 2018, to Dec. 18,
2018. She was paid on a commission basis for selling cars, and she
alleged that O'Gara failed to pay at least the minimum wage, and
failed to pay for required non-commission work, among other claims.
She later amended the complaint to include Westlake, the O'Gara
affiliate that owned the dealership where she had worked.

On Nov. 16, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, alleging that by signing the employment application,
Towell agreed to address all disputes regarding her employment in
individual arbitration. Towell opposed the motion on the ground
that the opt-out provision in the at-will employment agreement
superseded the employment application. In the alternative, she
argued that the arbitration agreement in the employment application
was unenforceable because it was procedurally and substantively
unconscionable. Finally, Towell argued that any arbitration
agreement was unenforceable to the extent that Towell's claims fell
within Labor Code section 229, which bars the enforcement of
arbitration agreements in cases seeking the recovery of unpaid
wages.

The trial court denied the motion, finding that Towell's decision
to opt out of the class action waiver was controlling. The trial
court did not reach the issues of unconscionability or Labor Code
section 229.

The Defendants filed a timely notice of appeal of the trial court's
order denying the motion. They argue that if the Appellate Court
applies the general principles of contract law, it must conclude
that there is a binding arbitration agreement between the parties.


On July 18, 2018, Towell signed the employment application, which
included a provision stating that "this agreement is the entire
agreement between the Company and the employee regarding the rights
of the Company or employee to terminate employment with or without
good cause and this agreement takes the place of all prior and
contemporaneous agreements, representations, and understandings of
the employee and the Company."

Thus, according to the Defendants, Towell's signature created a new
contract that voided all prior contracts with them, including the
at-will employment agreement in which Towell opted out of the
waiver of her right to file a class-action employment claim.

If the July 18 "wet-ink" signature were the only signature on the
at-will employment agreement, the Defendants' argument might be
persuasive, says Associate Justice Patricia D. Benke, writing for
the Panel. But when Towell was presented with the employment
application as she began work at the car dealership on July 18, her
electronic signature was already present on the document, along
with the date she first signed it, July 6, 2018.

In this context, Judge Benke finds that it is not at all clear that
Towell's July 18 signature served to create a new contract and
supersede all prior agreements. Towell proposes another plausible
interpretation: that the purpose of signing the document a second
time was merely to authenticate her original electronic signature.
Towell's interpretation of the July 18 signature is ore persuasive
than the Defendants' interpretation.

If the parties meant for Towell's second signature to void the
opt-out clause that she had signed merely 10 days earlier, the
Appellate Court would expect that intention to be stated clearly
and unequivocally.

Another consideration supporting Towell's interpretation is the
principle that, if the meaning of a standardized contract cannot be
resolved through other means, it must be construed against the
drafter, Judge Benke holds. The Defendants prepared both of the
contracts in this case and controlled the sequence in which Towell
signed them.

If the Defendants' interpretation of the documents were correct, it
would mean that their policy was to offer their new employees an
opportunity to opt out of waiving their class-action rights, but
then to require the employees to void that waiver when they began
work and signed the employment application for a second time. This
is an absurd outcome, Judge Benke points out.

The Defendants had the ability to design their employment contracts
as they wished. If they did not mean for employees like Towell to
have the right to opt out of the class-action waiver, they could
have declined to offer the option in the first place, Judge Benke
holds.

In the absence of a clear indication to the contrary, the Appellate
Court will not interpret Towell's second signature on the
employment application as a decision to surrender an option the
Defendants had explicitly offered her merely 10 days earlier. By
opting out of the class action waiver, Towell retained her right to
file a class action suit. There is no agreement between the parties
to arbitrate Towell's class-action claims, and the trial court did
not err by denying the Defendants' motion.

Hence, the trial court's order is affirmed. Towell is awarded her
costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2rbmntyx from Leagle.com.

Kolar & Associates, Elizabeth L. Kolar --
kolarlaw@kolarandassociates.com -- and Benjamin T. Runge --
ben@kolarandassociates.com -- for the Defendants and Appellants.

Berenji Law Firm, Shadie L. Berenji -- berenji@employeejustice.law
-- and Kristopher N. Tayyeb -- tayyeb@employeejustice.law -- for
the Plaintiffs and Respondents.


OHIO: Court Dismisses Remaining Claim in Hairston v. Bowerman
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, grants Defendant J.
Fox's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismiss the
Plaintiff's remaining claim in the lawsuit titled Rico Isaih
Hairston, et al., Plaintiff v. Sean Bowerman, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-37 (N.D. Ohio).

On Jan. 1, 2019, pro se Plaintiffs Rico Hairston and Johnnie
McCall, both inmates of the Toledo Correctional Institution
("ToCI") in Toledo, Ohio, filed a putative class action complaint,
asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for the alleged
violation of their constitutional rights. Hairston later filed a
document he referred to a supplement to his complaint, asserting a
Section 1983 claim against Defendant J. Fox for First Amendment
retaliation based upon Fox's alleged actions after Hairston filed
this litigation against the other Defendants. McCall reached a
settlement agreement as to each of his claims and those claims were
dismissed with prejudice.

Defendants Sean Bowerman, Jason Bennett, Joshua Gajewski, and Fox
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Hairston filed a
brief in opposition to that motion. Hairston subsequently dismissed
his claims against all Defendants except for his First Amendment
retaliation claim against Fox.

Mr. Hairston alleges that, on March 16, 2019, he was verbally
harassed by Fox, an officer at ToCI, and an inmate named Jones
while he was waiting to be transported for a visit with his
attorney. Hairston claims Fox and Jones were harassing him because
of the crime for which Hairston was convicted. Hairston alleges
that, after this incident and his visit with his attorney, he
returned to his cell to find his cell had been searched. He claims
his property was damaged and his legal papers torn up, and that his
headphones, medications, books, and hygiene items were removed from
his cell. Hairston believes this was a target from inmate Jones'
harassment towards him, by Defendant J. Fox.

Mr. Hairston also alleges that, after the incident with Fox and
Jones, Fox also wrote two conduct reports against Hairston.
Hairston alleges both conduct reports were fabrications and that he
did not engage in any of the conduct included in those reports. He
asserts Fox both searched his cell and wrote the conduct reports in
retaliation for Hairston's exercise of his First Amendment rights
by filing a lawsuit against the other Defendants.

Judge Helmick opines that Fox is entitled to judgment on the
pleadings because Hairston fails to plausibly allege there is a
causal connection between his protected conduct in filing this
lawsuit and the alleged adverse actions taken against him. Further,
even if Judge Helmick assumes Fox had knowledge of the lawsuit,
Hairston's allegations do not establish a causal connection.
Hairston has not pled any facts, which suggest Fox was motivated by
Hairston's protected conduct.

Like the plaintiff in Skinner v. Bolden, 89 F. App'x 579, 579-80
(6th Cir. 2004), Hairston has offered only conclusory allegations
of a retaliatory motive, and temporal proximity alone is
insufficient to establish the required causal connection between
his protected conduct and the alleged adverse actions. Therefore,
the Court concludes he fails to state a plausible claim for relief
and grant Fox's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

For the reasons stated, the Court grants Defendant Fox's motion for
judgment on the pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ypd72sf from
Leagle.com.


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied as moot without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit entitled IN RE OMEGA HEALTHCARE
INVESTORS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 17 Civ. 8983 (NRB)
(S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, appointment
of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel on March
16, 2022; the Defendants filed an opposition brief on Aug. 15,
2022; and the Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on Sept. 15, 2022.

While the Plaintiffs' motion was pending, on Oct. 25, 2022, the
Plaintiffs informed the Court that the parties have reached an
agreement, in principle, to settle this class action as to all
claims and all parties and asked the Court to suspend the deadlines
in the Dec. 16, 2021 Revised Case Management Plan and Scheduling
Order.

The Court granted the Plaintiffs' request to suspend the deadlines
in the scheduling order on Oct. 25, 2022.

The Plaintiffs' motion is denied as moot without prejudice to its
re-filing should the settlement not be finalized.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/kup394hr from Leagle.com.


OMNICELL INC: Heard Suit Interim Status Conference Set for Nov. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicell Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the court set an
interim status conference for the class action suit captioned Corey
Heard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Omnicell, Inc. on November 30, 2022.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, on June 5,
2019, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, captioned Corey Heard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No. 2019-CH-06817
(the "Heard Action"). The complaint seeks class certification,
monetary damages in the form of statutory damages for willful
and/or reckless or, in the alternative, negligent violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and certain
declaratory, injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action
directed to allegations of violation of BIPA by the Company.

The complaint was served on the Company on June 13, 2019.

On July 31, 2019, the Company filed a motion to stay or consolidate
the case with the action Yana Mazya, et al. v. Northwestern Lake
Forest Hospital, et al., Case No. 2018-CH-07161, pending in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (the
"Mazya Action").

The Court subsequently, on October 10, 2019, denied the motion,
without prejudice, as being moot in view of the dismissal of the
claims against the Company in the Mazya Action.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the Heard
Action on October 31, 2019.

The hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was held on
September 2, 2020.

The Court ruled from the bench and dismissed the complaint without
prejudice giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by
September 30, 2020.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 30, 2020 and the
Company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on October 28, 2020, which was fully briefed, but the
Court had not heard oral argument on the motion.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement on January 25,
2022, (the "Settlement Agreement").

On February 1, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. Following preliminary approval, plaintiff conducted
discovery to identify class members and to determine the class
size. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and
following class size discovery, the parties will participate in
non-binding mediation, which is currently scheduled for November
21, 2022 to determine if the settlement will move forward.

The Court has scheduled an interim status conference for November
30, 2022. Subject to final approval of the settlement, the Company
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software
solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare
worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Automation
and Analytics, and Medication Adherence. The Company was formerly
known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to
Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


PACIFICORP: Class Action in Oregon Over 2020 Wildfires Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
PacifiCorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that the class action
complaint in Oregon, on behalf of plaintiffs related to the 2020
Wildfires is ongoing.

In September 2020, a severe weather event resulting in high winds,
low humidity and warm temperatures contributed to several major
wildfires, which resulted in real and personal property and natural
resource damage, personal injuries and loss of life and widespread
power outages in Oregon and Northern California. The wildfires
spread across certain parts of PacifiCorp's service territory and
surrounding areas across multiple counties in Oregon and
California, including Siskiyou County, California; Jackson County,
Oregon; Douglas County, Oregon; Marion County, Oregon; Lincoln
County, Oregon; and Klamath County, Oregon burning over 500,000
acres in aggregate. Third party reports for these wildfires
indicate over 2,000 structures destroyed, including residences;
several structures damaged; multiple individuals injured; and
several fatalities. Fire suppression costs estimated by various
agencies total approximately $150 million.

Investigations into the cause and origin of each wildfire are
complex and ongoing and being conducted by various entities,
including the United States Forest Service, the California Public
Utilities Commission, the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Oregon
Department of Justice, PacifiCorp and various experts engaged by
PacifiCorp.

As of the date of this filing, 60 lawsuits have been filed in
Oregon and California, including a class action complaint in
Oregon, on behalf of plaintiffs related to the 2020 Wildfires.

The plaintiffs seek damages that include property damages, economic
losses, punitive damages, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and
other damages. Additionally, several insurance carriers have filed
subrogation complaints in Oregon and California with allegations
similar to those made in the aforementioned lawsuits.

The final determinations of liability, however, will only be made
following the completion of comprehensive investigations and
litigation processes.

Portland, Oregon based PacifiCorp, which includes PacifiCorp and
its subsidiaries, is a United States regulated, vertically
integrated electric company serving 1.8 million retail customers,
including residential, commercial, industrial and other customers
in portions of the states of Utah, Oregon, Wyoming, Washington,
Idaho and California.


PACIFICORP: Trial by Jury Demanded in Dietrich Suit
---------------------------------------------------
PacifiCorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that in the putative class
action captioned Margaret Dietrich et al. v. PacifiCorp filed in
Oregon, the plaintiffs and proposed class demand a trial by jury.

On August 26, 2022, a putative class action complaint seeking
declaratory and equitable relief against PacifiCorp was filed,
captioned Margaret Dietrich et al. v. PacifiCorp, Case No.
22CV29187, Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon.

The complaint was filed by two Oregon residents individually and on
behalf of a class initially defined to include residents of,
business owners in, real or personal property owners in and any
other individuals physically present in specified Oregon counties
as of September 7, 2020 who experienced any harm, damage or loss as
a result of the Santiam, Beachie Creek, Lionshead, Echo Mountain
Complex, Two Four Two or South Obenchain fires in September 2020.

The complaint was amended on September 6, 2022, to seek damages of
over $900 million that were originally demanded on August 4, 2022,
pursuant to Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure 32 H.

The amended complaint alleges: (i) negligence due to alleged
failure to comply with certain Oregon statutes and administrative
rules; (ii) gross negligence due to alleged conscious indifference
to or reckless disregard for the probable consequences of
defendant's actions or inactions; (iii) private nuisance; (iv)
public nuisance; (v) trespass; (vi) inverse condemnation; (vii)
accounting/injunction; (viii) negligent infliction of emotional
distress. The amended complaint seeks the following: (i) an order
certifying the matter as a class action; (ii) economic damages not
less than $400 million; (iii) double the amount of economic and
property damages to the extent applicable under Oregon statute;
(iv) reasonable costs of reforestation activities; (v) doubling and
trebling of certain other damages to the extent applicable under
certain Oregon statutes; (vi) noneconomic damages not less than
$500 million; (vii) prejudgment interest; (viii) an order requiring
an accounting with respect to the amount of damages; (ix) an order
enjoining PacifiCorp from leaving power lines energized in areas of
Oregon experiencing extremely critical fire conditions; (x) an
award of reasonable attorney fees, costs, investigation costs,
disbursements and expert witness fees; and (xi) other relief the
court finds appropriate.

The plaintiffs and proposed class demand a trial by jury.

Portland, Oregon based PacifiCorp, which includes PacifiCorp and
its subsidiaries, is a United States regulated, vertically
integrated electric company serving 1.8 million retail customers,
including residential, commercial, industrial and other customers
in portions of the states of Utah, Oregon, Wyoming, Washington,
Idaho and California.

PFIZER INC: Drug Contains Nitrosamine Impurity, Walter Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAPHNE WALTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PFIZER, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01708-SB (D. Or., Nov.
3, 2022) alleges that the drug Chantix sold by the Defendant are
adulterated, misbranded, or unapproved varenicline-containing drugs
(VCDs).

The brand name drug Chantix is known generically as varenicline and
is a partial nicotine agonist. It is a first-line therapy in the
treatment to help quit smoking. Unlike many other smoking-cessation
aids, Chantix does not contain nicotine. Chantix quickly became one
of Pfizer's fastest growing products. Major media spending on
Chantix totaled approximately $55 million in 2007 (the year after
its approval). In the year Chantix launched, Pfizer spent
approximately $4.3 million in medical journal advertisements alone.
The market rapidly embraced Chantix and continues to do so to this
day. For example, from its launch through 2015, the number of
Chantix prescriptions for Medicaid beneficiaries increased 13,277%.
The price for Chantix has also steadily climbed since its launch.
Price estimates at launch were approximately $113.98 climbing to
$254.50 in 2015. By 2018, the price had more than doubled to $485
for a 30-day supply, bringing in $997 million in sales that year.
The market for smoking-cessation treatments remains strong with
sales of Chantix at approximately $919 million prior to recall,
says the suit.

On July 2, 2021, and July 19, 2021, Pfizer allegedly began
recalling its VCDs "because the product may contain levels of a
nitrosamine impurity, called N-nitroso-varenicline, above FDA's
acceptable intake limit."

Pfizer Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology corporation headquartered on 42nd Street in
Manhattan, New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph E. Piucci, Esq.
          PIUCCI LAW, LLC
          900 SW 13th Avenue, Suite 200
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 228-7385
          Facsimile: (503) 228-2571
          E-mail: joe@piucci.com

PFIZER INC: Faces Ellis Suit Over Sale of Contaminated Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-11876-RGS (D. Mass., Nov. 7, 2022) is a class action
arising from adulterated, misbranded, or unapproved
varenicline-containing drugs ("VCDs") that were designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, packaged, sold by the
Defendant under the brand name Chantix.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that according to FDA
testing, the Defendant's VCDs contained nitrosamine levels many
times higher than the FDA's updated interim limits for nitrosamine
impurities. On July 2, 2021, and July 19, 2021, Pfizer began
recalling its VCDs "because the product may contain levels of a
nitrosamine impurity, called N-nitroso-varenicline, above FDA's
acceptable intake limit."

N-nitroso-varenicline contamination of the Defendant's VCDs dates
back many years, at which point the Defendant had actual or, at a
minimum, constructive notice of the contamination. The Defendant's
wrongful acts caused those people trying to use smoking products
less to take a pill containing carcinogens similar to those
contained in cigarettes.

The Plaintiff paid for VCDs that were illegally and willfully
introduced into the market by the Defendant, which caused them and
hundreds of other purchasers paying for or reimbursing
prescriptions for these VCDs to sustain substantial economic
damages.

PFIZER INC. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company
offers medicines, vaccines, medical devices, and consumer
healthcare products for oncology, inflammation, cardiovascular, and
other therapeutic areas. Pfizer serves customers worldwide. BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paula S. Bliss, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE, LLC
          210 Washington Street
          North Easton, MA 02356
          Telephone:(508) 230-2700
          Email: paula@justicelc.com

SAFEBUILT FLORIDA: Sykes Sues Over Failure to Properly Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY SYKES, and all others similarly situated pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), Plaintiff v. SAFEBUILT FLORIDA, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
0:22-cv-62059-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November 4, 2022) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and unlawful
interference under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a non-exempt and
hourly-paid Permit Tech on or about September 3, 2020 and still
employed as of the date and time of this filing.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff works approximately 44
hours per week. Specifically, the Plaintiff earned approximately
$17.86 per hour from on or about September 4, 2020, until on or
about September 25, 2022, and $20.00 per hour from September 26,
2022 through the present. However, the Defendant automatically
deducted a full hour from the Plaintiff's hours worked daily for a
meal period even though she was not completely relieved of her
duties. As a result, she was not properly compensated the federally
mandated overtime wages during the previous 3 years. In addition,
the Defendant failed to keep accurate time and pay records for the
Plaintiff and all members of the putative collective, says the
suit.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for back pay, front pay, an
equal amount of liquidated damages, other damages and benefits
provided for under the FMLA, equitable relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and any and all further relief that this
Court determines to be just and reasonable.

Safebuilt Florida, LLC is engaged in community development and
infrastructure services and supports local communities and
developers in the South Florida area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Jake Blumstein, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Ave., Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Tel: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

SALLY BEAUTY: Teuscher Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TESSA TEUSCHER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY, LLC; SALLY BEAUTY
HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CV-22-1438, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Yolo, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
November 4, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-02006-DAD-KJN to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime owed, failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages
during employment, failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation
from employment, failure to reimburse necessary expenses, knowing
and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement
provisions, and unfair competition.

Sally Beauty Supply, LLC is a supplier of beauty products and
equipment, headquartered in Denton, Texas.

Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. is an international specialty retailer
and distributor of professional beauty supplies, headquartered in
Denton, Texas. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
         Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Telephone: (858) 652-3100
         Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
         E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
                 marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Gutierrez Suit Stayed Pending Consolidation
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled TAMMY GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-05719-SK
(N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
signed the parties' Stipulation and Order to stay proceedings
pending decision on motion for transfer and consolidation.

On Oct. 4, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint in
the action. On Oct. 11, 2022, she served the original summons and
Complaint on Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

On Oct. 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs in a related action currently
pending in this District, styled Seirafi, et al. v. Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-5176, filed a Motion for
Transfer of Actions to the Northern District of California Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 for Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial
Proceedings before the United States Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL Petition"), specifically
listing this action for inclusion in any centralization order
issued by the Panel, In re: Samsung Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, JPML Case No. 3055, ECF No. 1. Accordingly, the Panel's
decision on the MDL Petition may directly impact this case and
whether it proceeds in this Court.

In light of the possibility that this action might not proceed in
this Court, the parties agree that a stay of these proceedings
during the pendency of the MDL Petition would save judicial and
party resources.

The parties, through their respective counsel, stipulate that this
action be stayed pending the Panel's determination on the MDL
Petition. Should the Panel deny centralization of the actions that
are the subject of the MDL Petition (including this one), the
parties will confer and jointly submit a proposed order lifting the
stay for the Court's review and approval, which will include a
deadline for Samsung's response to the Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated Oct.
27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4evvw8mj from
Leagle.com.

Jason J. Kim -- kimj@HuntonAK.com -- HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, in
Los Angeles, California, Attorney for Defendant SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC.

Marcus J. Bradley -- mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com -- Kiley L.
Grombacher -- kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com -- Lirit A. King --
lking@bradleygrombacher.com -- BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP, in Westlake
Village, California, Attorney for Plaintiff TAMMY GUTIERREZ.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Kelechian Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Raffi Kelechian, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
Case No. 22STCV30284, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Nov. 3, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-08056-AB-PLA to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Samsung Electronics -- http://www.samsung.com/us-- leads the
global market in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital
media.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (310) 601-3131
          Fax: (310) 388-8444
          Email: daniel@slfla.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason Jonathan Kim, Esq.
          Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 532-2000
          Fax: (213) 532-2020
          Email: kimj@huntonak.com
                 amortimer@huntonAK.com


SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Adams-Gillard's $1.6MM Settlement Has Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, grants the Joint
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the lawsuit
titled DENITA ADAMS-GILLARD and JAY SYCKS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-2038
(W.D. Tenn.).

The multistate class action arises from the Defendant's alleged
practice of misclassifying workers as exempt from entitlement to
overtime wages. Sedgwick and Representative Plaintiffs Denita
Adams-Gillard and Jay Sycks filed a Joint Stipulation of Settlement
and Release on May 13, 2022 (the "Settlement").

On May 16, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed Settlement and provisionally certified two classes for
settlement purposes only. On Sept. 6, 2022, the parties filed a
Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. On
Sept. 22, 2022, the Representative Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed
Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs from Class Action
Settlement.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court finally
certifies the following classes for settlement purposes only:

   -- The Illinois Class refers to current and former employees
      of Defendant who held the position of Disability
      Representative Sr. in Illinois during the time period from
      January 15, 2018 to May 24, 2021 except for those 16
      individuals who were the subject of the tolling agreement
      entered into in conjunction with the Easterwood, et al. v.
      Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. action, Middle
      District of Florida, Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-700 for whom
      the time period commences as early as July 21, 2017; and,
      who were classified as exempt from overtime wages.

      This class excludes those individuals who worked as
      Disability Representative Seniors in Illinois processing
      requests or claims for accommodation under the ADA who are
      in the initial putative class alleged in Walker and
      Harris v. Sedgwick, in the Northern District of Illinois,
      Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-07482; and

   -- The Ohio Class refers to all current and former employees
      of Defendant who held the position of Disability
      Representative Sr. in Ohio during the time period from
      January 15, 2019 to May 24, 2021 except for those 15
      individuals who were the subject of the tolling agreement
      entered into in conjunction with the Easterwood, et al. v.
      Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. action, Middle
      District of Florida, Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-700 for whom
      the time period commences as early as July 20, 2018; and,
      who were classified as exempt from overtime wages.

The Settlement provides that Defendant will create a class fund in
the amount of $1.6 million. The Motion for Attorneys' Fees requests
that $400,000 of this sum be paid to class counsel. Of the
remainder, $787,500 is to be paid to Illinois Class Members and
$412,500 is to be paid to Ohio Class Members.

Judge Mays holds that the Settlement satisfies the requirements for
certification under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) and is appropriate
under Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Court appoints Mary E. Lytle
and David V. Barszcz of Lytle & Barszcz, P.A., as class counsel for
the Settlement Classes.

The Court also designates Representative Plaintiffs Denita
Adams-Gillard and Jay Sycks as the representatives of the
Settlement Classes.

Judge Mays finds that the Defendant has complied with all notice
obligations under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections
1715, et seq., in connection with the Settlement.

Pursuant to the preliminary approval order, any objections to the
Settlement were to have been submitted no later than Aug. 5, 2022.
There have been no objections to the Settlement.

Class Members who did not timely file and serve an objection in
writing to the Settlement are deemed to have waived any such
objection through any appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise.

The Court grants the Motion for Final Approval and approves and
adopts the Settlement, fully and finally terminating the claims of
the Representative Plaintiffs and the Settlement Classes in this
action against the Defendant, on the merits and with prejudice.

The releases set forth in section 23 of the Settlement are
incorporated herein in all respects and are effective as of the
entry of judgment.

The class counsel requests that they be awarded $400,000 in fees
and expenses incurred in prosecuting the case for nearly two years.
This figure includes $387,863.39 in fees and $12,136.61 in costs
advanced. The requested fees and expenses will not reduce the
amounts set aside for the benefit of the Class Members.

The Settlement provides substantial relief to the Class Members.
There are 135 members in each of the Illinois and Ohio classes. The
settlement provides $787,500 to the Illinois class (an average of
$5,833.33 per class member) and $412,500 to the Ohio class (an
average of $3,055.56 per class member).

Based on all of these findings, the Court grants the Motion for
Attorneys' Fees. As a result, the Court orders and authorizes the
requested award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the total amount
of $400,000 to be paid to class counsel by the Defendant. The
Defendant will not be responsible for and will not be liable with
respect to the allocation among class counsel or to any other
person who may assert a claim for attorneys' fees and expenses
awarded by the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/frmm3hw6 from Leagle.com.


SIMMONS FIRST: Reaches Settlement with Pace Suit Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Simmons First National Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the
Company has entered a settlement deal with plaintiffs in the Pace
putative class action that is subject to the final approval of the
court.

On January 14, 2020, Susanne Pace filed a putative class action
complaint in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri against
Landmark Bank, formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Landrum
Company, to which Simmons Bank is a successor by merger in
connection with the Company's acquisition of The Landrum Company,
which closed in October 2019. The complaint alleges that Landmark
Bank improperly charged overdraft fees where a transaction was
initially authorized on sufficient funds but later settled negative
due to intervening transactions.

The complaint asserts a claim for breach of contract, which
incorporates the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all Landmark Bank
checking account customers from Missouri who were allegedly charged
overdraft fees on transactions that did not overdraw their checking
account.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified actual, statutory, and punitive damages
as well as costs, attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, an
injunction, and other relief as the Court deems proper for herself
and the putative class.

Simmons Bank denies the allegations but has entered into a
settlement agreement and release with the plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and the proposed class to resolve this matter, subject
to the court's final approval.

The settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, consolidated results of operations,
financial condition, or cash flows.

Simmons First National Corporation, an Arkansas corporation
organized in 1968, is a financial holding company registered under
the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended.


SIMMONS FIRST: Reaches Settlement with Walkingstick Suit Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Simmons First National Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the
Company has entered a settlement deal with plaintiffs in the Danny
Walkingstick and Whitnye Fort suit that is subject to the final
approval of the court.

On May 22, 2019, Danny Walkingstick and Whitnye Fort filed a
putative class action complaint against Simmons Bank in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The
operative complaint alleges that Simmons Bank improperly charges
overdraft fees on transactions that did not actually overdraw
customers' accounts by utilizing the checking account's "available
balance" to assess overdraft fees instead of the "ledger balance."


Plaintiffs' claims include breach of contract and unjust
enrichment, and they seek to represent a proposed class of all
Simmons Bank checking account customers who were assessed an
overdraft fee on a transaction that purportedly did not overdraw
the account.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems
proper for themselves and the putative class.

Simmons Bank denies the allegations but has entered into a
settlement agreement and release with the plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and the proposed class to resolve this matter, subject
to the court’s final approval.

The settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, consolidated results of operations,
financial condition, or cash flows.

Simmons First National Corporation, an Arkansas corporation
organized in 1968, is a financial holding company registered under
the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended.


SOLAREDGE TECH: Faces Reford Suit Over 2.3% Drop of Stock Shares
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLAN REFORD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES INC., SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES
LIMITED, ZVI LANDO and RONEN FAIER, Case No. 1:22-cv-09423
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2022) is a class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired common shares of SolarEdge stock between August
6, 2022 to October 19, 2022, seeking to recover damages caused by
the Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Defendants allegedly failed to disclose to investors that the
designs of the power optimizers, inverters, and components thereof
used to develop SolarEdge's products potentially originated with
and were misappropriated from Ampt LLC, a competitor in the
renewable energy industry.

As a result, SolarEdge faced a threat of regulatory and/or court
action, which could prohibit the import, marketing, and sale of its
power optimizers and inverters, including solar energy systems that
contain such products; which in turn seriously threatened
SolarEdge's ability to monetize on their solar energy systems that
contain the power optimizers and inverters in the United States and
generate revenue. The investing public learned of this alleged
patent infringement on July 28, 2022 when the U.S. International
Trade Commission (ITC) agreed to review a patent infringement case
filed by Ampt against SolarEdge on July 28, 2022, says the suit.

The news of the ITC's vote to institute an investigation of
SolarEdge on August 29, 2022 caused a precipitous and immediate
decline in the price of SolarEdge shares. While SolarEdge's stock
price opened at $284.23 on August 29, 2022, the news of ITC's vote
resulted in SolarEdge’s stock price to fall approximately 1.4% to
close at $279.46 on August 29, 2022. This news caused SolarEdge to
lose market capitalization of $265 million on August 29, 2022,
added the suit.

On October 19, 2022, investors learned the gravity of the ITC's
investigation when Judge Connolly in the District Court of Delaware
stayed a parallel proceeding filed against SolarEdge by Ampt and
based on substantially similar allegations, styled Ampt, LLC v.
SolarEdge Tech., Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00997 (D. Del.) pending the
ITC's investigation. On this news, shares of SolarEdge stock fell
2.3% to close at $199.46 on October 19, 2022, the suit further
asserts.

Solaredge provides solar power optimization and photovoltaic
monitoring solutions for solar energy systems, offering optimizers,
inverters, monitoring equipment, tools, and accessories for power
harvesting, conversion, and efficiency while serving customers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

STAPLES THE OFFICE: Heightened Doc Protection in Corral Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JUAN CARLOS CORRAL, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of
Defendants in the State of California, Plaintiff v. STAPLES THE
OFFICE SUPERSTORE LLC, a limited liability company authorized to do
business in the state of California, and DOES 1 through 50
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01254 MCS (PVCx) (C.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division,
signed the parties' stipulation and order to supplement the
protective order regarding confidential information with heightened
levels of confidentiality.

Recognizing the need for heightened levels of protection for
certain documents to be designated as "Highly
Confidential—Attorneys' Eyes Only," Corral and Staples stipulate
to and petition the Court to enter their supplement to the
"Stipulated Protective Order" entered by the Court on May 13,
2022.

The class action was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 21STCV41815.

The lawsuit is a putative class and PAGA representative action that
is likely to involve discovery regarding trade secrets, commercial,
financial, proprietary, and/or personal information for which
special protection from public disclosure and from use for any
purpose other than prosecution or defense of this action is
warranted. Certain confidential and proprietary materials and
information should be considered highly confidential because
disclosure of such information would create substantial risk of
serious financial or other injury that cannot be avoided by less
restrictive means.

Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the
prompt resolution of disputes over the confidentiality of discovery
materials, to adequately protect information the Parties are
entitled to keep highly confidential, to ensure that the Parties
are permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in
preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their
handling at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of
justice, a supplement to the Protective Order for such information
is justified in this matter.

It is the intent of the Parties that information will not be
designated as highly confidential for tactical reasons and that
nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has
been maintained in a highly confidential, non-public manner, and
there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record
of this case.

The Supplement provides that all definitions and provisions in the
May 13, 2022 Protective Order remain valid unless otherwise
explicitly stated here. All terms, including the designation,
production, and use of confidential documents, apply to the
heightened designation of "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes
Only," unless otherwise stated here.

"Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" means any information
which belongs to a Designating Party who believes in good faith
that the Disclosure of such information to another Party or
non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious financial or
other injury that cannot be avoided by less restrictive means.

"Highly Confidential Materials" means any Documents, Testimony, or
Information designated as "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes
Only" pursuant to the provisions of the Parties' May 13, 2022
Protective Order and this Stipulation and Order to Supplement the
Protective Order.

Any document or tangible thing disclosed in the action that is
reasonably believed to be "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes
Only" by a Party producing the same will be designated as such by
marking the document or thing as "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS'
EYES ONLY" prior to production.

Highly Confidential Materials designated as "HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" may be disclosed only to the
following persons: (a) The Court; (b) Attorneys of record, et al.;
(c) court reporters and videographers; (d) outside experts or
expert consultants; and (e) any other person that the Designating
Party agrees to in writing.

Counsel for the Party, who intends to disclose Highly Confidential
Materials to any outside experts or expert consultants consulted by
the Parties or their counsel in connection with the Proceeding,
will be responsible for delivering a copy of the Parties' May 13,
2022 Protective Order and this Stipulation and Order to Supplement
the Protective Order to such person, will explain its terms to such
person, and will secure the signature of such person on a statement
in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1 prior to the Disclosure of
Highly Confidential Materials, before disclosing any Highly
Confidential Materials to that person.

A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Protective Order
dated Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yuawzxsc
from Leagle.com.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Obsolete Telematics in Motor Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN BENNETT; and BRIAN WELIKSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-08147 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2022) is an action
against the Defendants for breach of express warranty and implied
warranty, fraudulent omission, unjust enrichment, violations of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the
New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Class purchased
or leased Toyota and Lexus branded vehicles which were manufactured
with a 3G modem, an obsolete piece of telematics equipment, the
Class Vehicles. The Class Vehicles have a telematics system that
requires wireless network connectivity to remain wholly operable.
However, due to the Defendants' decision to equip the Class
Vehicles with obsolete telematics equipment, many of the Class
Vehicles' internet enabled features—such as collision
notification and roadside assistance safety features—have become
inoperable because the Class Vehicles' internet enabled features no
longer are supported by 3G wireless compatibility which has been
discontinued, says the suit.

Because of the Defendants' decision to equip the Class Vehicles
with internet enabled features and services that prematurely become
inoperable and their refusal to upgrade Class Vehicles to maintain
telematics capabilities, the Plaintiffs and class members are
unable to utilize their Vehicles' telematics equipment and its
safety features.

As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class
have been damaged and were injured on account of receiving Vehicles
that were fundamentally different from what they believed they were
purchasing and obtained Vehicles that are less valuable than what
they paid to purchase the Vehicles, the suit added.

TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA INC. operates as a holding company. The
Company manages all North American operations covering automotive
sales, engineering, manufacturing, economic research, advertising,
corporate communications, government affairs, and all other related
operations. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
          Deborah De Villa, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505-4521
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                 rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                 ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com

U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE: Cannon Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Marshal Service,
et al. The case is styled as Christopher Cannon: Bey, In re
President; On Behalf of Himself and Similarly Situated persons,
Petitioner v. U.S. Marshal Service et al., Defendant; The United
States District Court for the Northern District Court of Illinois
et al., Respondent; Case No. 1:22-cv-06098 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 3,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated Other Civil Rights for Petition for
Writ of Mandamus.

The United States Marshals Service -- https://www.usmarshals.gov/
-- is a federal law enforcement agency in the United States.[BN]

The Petitioners appear pro se.

The Defendant and Respondent are represented by:

          AUSA – Chicago
          United States Attorney's Office (NDIL-Chicago)
          219 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Email: USAILN.ECFAUSA@usdoj.gov


UNILEVER UNITED: Dry Shampoo Contains High Benzene, Sims Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAWANDA SIMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-06140
(N.D. Ill., Nov. 4, 2022) alleges that Unilever's dry shampoo
products sold under various brands contain dangerously high levels
of benzene, a carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to
leukemia and other cancers.

In October 2022, Unilever announced that "select lot codes of dry
shampoo aerosol products produced prior to October 2021 from Dove,
Nexxus, Suave, TIGI (Rockaholic and Bed Head), and TRESemme" were
being recalled due to potentially elevated levels of benzene.
Unilever instructed consumers to "stop using the affected aerosol
dry shampoo products."

Benzene is a component of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke,
and is one of the elementary petrochemicals. Benzene exposure has
been linked with acute lymphocytic leukemia, chronic lymphocytic
leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The Defendant manufacture, distributes, advertises, markets and
sell the dry shampoo products.

The Products at issue include :

   (a) Dove Dry Shampoo Volume and Fullness

   (b) Dove Dry Shampoo Fresh Coconut

   (c) Dove Dry Shampoo Fresh and Floral

   (d) Dove Dry Shampoo Ultra Clean

   (e) Dove Dry Shampoo Invisible

   (f) Dove Dry Shampoo Detox and Purify

   (g) Dove Dry Shampoo Clarifying Charcoal

   (h) Dove Dry Shampoo Go Active

   (i) Nexxus Dry Shampoo Refreshing Mist

   (j) Nexxus Inergy Foam Shampoo

   (k) Suave Dry Shampoo Hair Refresher

   (l) Suave Professionals Dry Shampoo Refresh and Revive

   (m) TRESemme Dry Shampoo Volumizing

   (n) TRESemme Dry Shampoo Fresh and Clean

   (o) TRESemme Pro Pure Dry Shampoo

   (p) Bed Head Oh Bee Hive Dry Shampoo

   (q) Bed Head Oh Bee Hive Volumizing Dry Shampoo

   (r) Bed Head Dirty Secret Dry Shampoo

   (s) Bed Head Rockaholic Dirty Secret Dry Shampoo.

Unilever is multinational consumer goods company known for its wide
range of personal care and hygiene products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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

                - and -

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          Jonathan Shub,
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Hwy E., 2nd Fl.
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 772-7200
          Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
          E-mail: klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
                  jshub@shublawyers.com

                - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com

                - and -

          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9189
          E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com

                - and -

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

UNITED STATES: C.D. California Dismisses Dinkins Prisoner Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROBERT O. DINKINS, Plaintiff v. UNITED
STATES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-08942-CAS (KES) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Christina A. Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California accepts the findings and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and concludes that the
action should be dismissed with prejudice.

The Plaintiff has filed a civil rights complaint under Bivens v.
Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Plaintiff, a prisoner
at U.S. Penitentiary in Lompoc, California, has alleged the
following claims in his third amended complaint: (1) Eighth
Amendment violation based on medical treatment for a sinus
blockage; (2) Eighth Amendment violation based on failure to
provide the Plaintiff with a wheelchair-accessible cell; (3) Eighth
Amendment claim based on failure to protect the Plaintiff from
COVID-19; (4) an Equal Protection Clause violation for failing to
release the Plaintiff during the COVID-19 pandemic; and (5) Due
Process Clause violations for failing to properly process
grievances in prison, improperly punishing disabled prisoners for
refusing to accept cell assignments, and failing to employ fair
procedures in declining to transfer the Plaintiff to home
confinement.

The Magistrate Judge has undertaken screening of the Plaintiff's
third amended complaint in accordance with the Prison Litigation
Reform Act's pre-screening requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(e)(2), 1915A. As part of this screening, the
Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing with prejudice all of the
Plaintiff's claims. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical treatment claim and Equal
Protection claim, be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

As to the other Bivens Eighth Amendment and Due Process claims, the
Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal without leave to amend
because the claims fail as a matter of law. Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge found that those Bivens claims fail the Supreme
Court's test set forth in cases like Ziglar v. Abbasi and Egbert v.
Boule, that forbid extended Bivens to causes of action not
previously recognized by the Supreme Court and where special
factors counsel hesitation in doing so.

The Plaintiff's Objection essentially raises two grounds: (1) that
the Magistrate Judge has not considered his motion to be appointed
counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e); and (2) that the
Magistrate Judge and the Court fail to see the harm alleged in his
complaint. The Court finds and concludes that all of the
Plaintiff's objections are without merit.

First, the Plaintiff argues that the Court has erred in refusing to
grant his motion to be appointed counsel. Second, the Plaintiff
claims that the Magistrate Judge and the Court continue to state
things like the Plaintiff didn't claim harm from delay of treatment
when he clearly did so.

In the Report, the Magistrate Judge wrote that the Plaintiff's
deliberate indifference claim seems to be based primarily on the
delay in receiving the joint sinus and blockage surgery allegedly
recommended by doctor(s) at USP Atlanta but that the TAC admits
that the Plaintiff ultimately received this surgery and in the
intervening months, received "blockage" surgery and medication to
treat his sinus problems.

Like the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds that under the
controlling case law the USP Lompoc doctor's choice to first
attempt less aggressive forms of treatment does not plausibly
suggest deliberate indifference. Neither the Magistrate Judge nor
the Court deny that the Plaintiff alleges harm--rather, the
Plaintiff throughout every iteration of his complaint fails to
state a claim under the Eighth Amendment based on the delay in
performing a specific type of surgery to treat the Plaintiff's
problems.

Moreover, while the Plaintiff does not raise specific challenges to
the Magistrate Judge's analysis with respect to the rest of his
claims, the Court in its de novo review agrees with the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation that the other Eighth Amendment claims, as
well as the Equal Protection and Due Process claims, be dismissed
for both failing the Ziglar test for Bivens claims and for
additionally failing to state a claim.

The Court specifically notes that the Plaintiff has alternative
means to address his allegations on ongoing harm or conduct,
including the BOP's Administrative Remedy Program established by 28
C.F.R. Section 542.10-542.19 and the Plaintiff's participation in
the class action lawsuit in Torres v. Milusnic, 20-CV-04450-CBM-PVC
(C.D. Cal.).

Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and
recommendations set forth in the Report. It concludes that nothing
set forth in the Objection or otherwise in the record for this case
affects, alters, or calls into question the findings and analysis
set forth in the Report.

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court orders that Judgment
should be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3xzkpe7h from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Dinkins' Habeas Claim Dismissed as Duplicative
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christina A. Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California accepts the findings and
recommendations issued by the United States Magistrate Judge in the
lawsuit entitled ROBERT O. DINKINS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES, et
al., Respondents, Case No. 2:21-cv-06991-CAS (KES) (C.D. Cal.).

The Magistrate Judge recommended, among other things, dismissing
the Petitioner's habeas claim as duplicative of the relief sought
in Torres v. Milusnic, 20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the
records and files herein, including the second amended habeas
petition, the Respondent's motion to dismiss the second amended
habeas petition, the Respondent's supplemental brief, the
Petitioner's response to the motion to dismiss, the Petitioner's
motion for leave to supplement the Petition, the Petitioner's
response to the Respondent's supplemental brief, the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the
Petitioner's Objections to the Report.

The Petitioner is a prisoner in the custody of the federal Bureau
of Prisons ("BOP") who is currently housed at the U.S. Penitentiary
("USP") in Lompoc, California. This case has a long procedural
history, and presently before the Court is the Petitioner's second
amended habeas petition. In the second amended petition, the
Petitioner alleges that his incarceration at USP Lompoc is
unconstitutional due to the threat of COVID-19 and his health
conditions that put him at high risk of death or serious illness if
he contracts the disease.

The Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that the
Petitioner's COVID-19-related habeas claim should be raised "in a
civil rights complaint" seeking appropriate relief. In response,
the Magistrate Judge requested supplemental briefing as to the
preclusive effect of the litigation in Torres v. Milusnic,
20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC (C.D. Cal.), a "putative class action on behalf
of all inmates at FCC Lompoc over the age of 50 or with certain
underlying health conditions, alleging that Lompoc officials were
failing to adequately protect them from COVID-19."

In the Report, the Magistrate Judge noted that a "district court
may properly dismiss an individual complaint because the
complainant is a member in a class action seeking the same relief"
(citing Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013)).

The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the Petitioner's habeas
claim as duplicative of the relief sought in Torres, of which the
Petitioner is already a class member. Specifically, the Magistrate
Judge described how the Petitioner was already reviewed for (and
denied) home confinement in connection with the preliminary
injunction issued in Torres requiring prison officials to develop a
process for review as expanded by the CARES Act. There is currently
a settlement pending review by the court in Torres litigation
(which the Magistrate Judge identified the Petitioner had not
objected to), with a fairness hearing set for Oct. 4, 2022, at the
time of the Magistrate Judge's Report.

The Petitioner's Objection essentially raises two points: (1) that
the Objection is also an objection to the settlement in Torres; and
(2) that the Magistrate Judge and Court err by refusing to overturn
the prison's review denying the Petitioner home confinement.
The Court finds and concludes that the Petitioner's objections are
without merit. To the extent the Petitioner wishes to object to the
settlement in Torres, he must do so through within the context of
the Torres lawsuit itself, not in this separate litigation for a
writ of habeas corpus. This reasoning also applies to the extent
the Petitioner in his Objection challenges the home confinement
review conducted pursuant to the injunction in the Torres
litigation.

Moreover, while the Petitioner does not raise specific challenges
to the Magistrate Judge's analysis that his petition is duplicative
of the Torres action, the Court in its de novo review agrees with
the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the petitioner be
dismissed on that basis.

That is, the Petitioner's habeas claim, which alleges that his
incarceration at USP Lompoc is unconditional due to the threat of
COVID-19 and makes numerous specific references to the evidence and
filings in the Torres litigation, is duplicative of the Torres
litigation of which the Petitioner "is a member in a class action
seeking the same relief."

Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and
recommendations set forth in the Report. It concludes that nothing
set forth in the Objection or otherwise in the record for this case
affects, alters, or calls into question the findings and analysis
set forth in the Report. Therefore, the Court concurs with and
accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court grants the Petitioner's
motion to supplement; grants the Respondent's motion to dismiss;
and dismisses the Second Amended Petition, without prejudice to the
Petitioner pursuing his habeas claim in Torres, 20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC
(C.D. Cal.), but without further leave to amend in this action.

As a federal prisoner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, the
Petitioner is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability
in order to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals in the
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/muuy7epc from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Mayorkas Appeals Final Judgment in Al Otro Lado Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. are
taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Al
Otro Lado, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alejandro Mayorkas, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.

The Plaintiffs, acting on their own behalf and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals presenting themselves at Ports of
Entry ("POEs") along the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum in the
United States. The Plaintiffs allege that the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection ("CBP") officials have systematically violated
U.S. law and binding international human rights law by refusing to
allow individuals, including the Plaintiffs - who present
themselves at POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border and assert their
intention to apply for asylum or a fear of returning to their home
countries - to seek protection in the United States.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have deprived the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals of their statutory
and regulatory rights to apply for asylum, violated their due
process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and violated the United States' obligations under
international law to uphold the principle of non-refoulement.

On August 23, 2022, the Court entered a final judgment in this case
through an Order signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant.

The appellate case is captioned Al Otro Lado, et al. v. Alejandro
Mayorkas, et al., Case No. 22-55988, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 25, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants' Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 1,
2022;

   -- Appellants' opening brief is due on December 20, 2022; and

   -- Appellees' answering brief is due on January 19, 2023. [BN]

UNITED STATES: North Carolina Court Dismisses Burghart Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Western Division, dismisses the lawsuit
styled BOBBY BURGHART, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-CT-3163-BO (E.D.N.C.).

On May 13, 2022, the Plaintiff, a federal inmate proceeding pro se,
filed a "class action complaint" under the Federal Tort Claims Act
("FICA"), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Burghart moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, to certify class action, a preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order, entry of default, and
recusal.

Mr. Burghart brings this action "on behalf of himself and all
persons who has, currently works, or will work for FPI (Unicore) in
the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) at
the BOP's FPI (Unicore) plants." He "believes" that this class
consists of approximately 450 past and current PIECP workers.

Mr. Burghart asserts five claims: (1) a tort claim for the illegal
seizure of funds (wages) rightfully belonging to the plaintiff(s);
(2) Plaintiff(s)' Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the
intentional, willful, and malicious illegal seizure of funds
(wages); (3) Plaintiff(s)' Fifth Amendment rights were violated by
the taking and converting of personal property (wages) into the use
of the BOP, without compensation and/or justification; (4)
Plaintiff(s) suffered cruel and unusual punishment in violation of
the Eighth Amendment by the illegal seizure of personal property
(wages); and (5) Plaintiff(s) assert that 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 as
applied to them violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. He seeks declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, and monetary damages.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act's ("PLRA") three-strikes provision
allows the court to dismiss a prisoner's action if the prisoner has
not paid his filing fees and "the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought
an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was
dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury."

Judge Boyle states that Burghart has used his three strikes
(Burghart v. United States, No. 5:16-CT-3332-FL (E.D.N.C. June 20,
2017)). He holds that lost wages do not place Burghart in imminent
danger of serious physical injury. Moreover, Burghart cannot defeat
the three-strikes provision of Section 1915(g) by adding another
Plaintiff to his Complaint. Thus, Burghart has not made a colorable
showing that this action should proceed under the exception to the
three-strikes rule.

As for Burghart's motion to certify class action, Judge Boyle
points out that Burghart is not a lawyer and cannot represent other
inmates in a class action. Thus, the Court denies the motion.

As for Burghart's motions for a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction, Judge Boyle finds that Burghart has not
plausibly alleged that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that
he is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief,
that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an
injunction is in the public interest. Thus, the Court denies the
motions.

As for Burghart's motion for recusal, Burghart seeks recusal of
Judge Boyle based in part by his actions in other litigations
involving Burghart and current inactions. Burghart states that
Judge Boyle has not taken any action in four months and alleges
that Judge Boyle's hesitancy to rule on any of the motions pending
shows partiality toward the Defendants, and bias against Burghart
because of his status of a federal prisoner.

Judge Boyle holds that Burghart has failed to make the requisite
showing for recusal. Thus, the Court denies the motion.

As for Burghart's motion for entry of default, Judge Boyle finds
the motion is premature. An entry of default will be made when a
party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has
failed to plead or otherwise defend. Because the Defendants have
not been served with the summons and complaint, no answer is due.
Thus, the Court denies the motion.

In sum, the Court denies Burghart's application to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismisses the complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(g). The Court denies Burghart's remaining motions. The Clerk
will close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3cph5fep from Leagle.com.


UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO: Class Certification in Cross Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Trevor Cross, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
University of Toledo, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 21AP-279 (Ohio
App.), the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin
County, reverses and remands the order granting class
certification.

Spring semester classes at UT began on January 21, 2020, and final
exams were scheduled to end on May 8, 2020, with on-campus students
scheduled to move out of their dormitories the next day. When
COVID-19 emerged, Defendant-Appellant University of Toledo ("UT")
announced a number of responsive measures that disrupted this
schedule. On March 13, 2020, it announced that all in-person
classes would be converted to online classes and that any student
living on campus able to leave should do so, as it was closing
residence halls and only students with extenuating circumstances
would be permitted to remain in on-campus housing. The University
offered a credit of $1,230 to students, who had paid for room and
board and a meal plan but did not offer any refund or credit for
tuition or other fees.

Plaintiff-Appellee Trevor Cross, a "finance and professional sales
major," who had paid tuition, room and board, and fees for the
entire Spring 2020 semester, was living on-campus when UT converted
all classes online and shut the residence halls. He moved back home
after the University's announcement.

On April 28, 2020, Mr. Cross filed suit against UT, purporting to
represent the following three classes of students:

   (1) Tuition Class:

       All people who were charged for or paid tuition for
       students enrolled in classes at the University for the
       Spring 2020 semester who were denied live in-person
       instruction and forced to use online distance learning
       platforms for the last quarter of the 2019-2020 academic
       year (the Tuition Class);

   (2) Room and Board Class:

       All people who were charged for or paid the costs of room
       and board (housing and meals) for students enrolled in
       classes at the University for the Spring 2020 semester who
       moved out of their on-campus housing prior to the
       completion of that semester because of the University's
       policies and announcements related to COVID-19 (the Room
       and Board Class); and

   (3) Fee Class:

       All people who were charged for or paid fees for or on
       behalf of students enrolled in classes at the University
       for the Spring 2020 semester (the Fee Class).

In a section captioned "Class Action Allegations," the complaint
described how Mr. Cross aimed to satisfy the requirements of Civ.R.
23. The impracticable joinder of all individual student class
members satisfied the numerosity requirement of Civ.R. 23(A)(1),
and the "precise number of members" could "be ascertained from the
University's records." The complaint listed a number of common
questions of law or fact, as required by Civ.R. 23(A)(2), including
whether there is a difference in value between online distance
learning and live in-person instruction.

Mr. Cross also alleged that his claims were typical of the classes
he described, as required by Civ.R. 23(A)(3), and that he would
adequately represent the class members when litigating those
claims, as required by Civ.R. 23(A)(4).

As to the claims themselves, Mr. Cross's complaint asserted three
breach of contract claims and three unjust enrichment claims on
behalf of each class.

In sum, Mr. Cross sought as relief for himself and other class
members the following: "a reduction in outstanding charges and a
partial refund of tuition representing the difference in value of a
half semester of live in-person instruction versus the value of a
half semester of online distance learning; a reduction in
outstanding charges and the return of the unused portion of room
and board costs proportionate to the amount of time that remained
in the Spring 2020 semester when students were forced to move out
of their on-campus housing; and, a reduction in outstanding charges
and the full refund of the unused portion of each meal contract and
a refund of a prorated share of fees."

Two days before a scheduled hearing on the issue, Mr. Cross filed a
motion for class certification supported by an expert report
prepared by Ted Tatos, an economist and statistician.

The trial court granted Mr. Cross's motion for certification (Apr.
26, 2021 Decision at 10.). In sum, it determines that Cross has
satisfied requirements for class certification by a preponderance
of the evidence. A class action would achieve economies of time,
expense and effort, as well as promote a uniformity of decisions
relative to similarly situated persons. The trial court made no
alteration to the definitions proposed by Mr. Cross before
certifying them.

UT timely appealed from the trial court's order and states the
following as its single assignment of error: "The Court of Claims
erred by certifying three separate classes, each of which contains
numerous members who have sustained no injury at all.

As a preliminary matter, Judge Michael C. Mentel, writing for the
Panel, notes that UT's appeal presents no argument challenging the
trial court court's Civ.R. 23(A)(1), (3), or (4) rulings on
numerosity, typicality, or Mr. Cross's ability to fairly and
adequately represent the classes. Nor did UT contest Mr. Cross's
arguments on the Civ.R. 23(A)(1), (3), or (4) prongs when opposing
his motion for class certification in the trial court.
Consequently, UT has waived any challenge to those portions of the
trial court's certification order and the Appellate Court will not
address them in its analysis.

Because Mr. Cross fulfilled his burden to present evidence in
support of the Civ.R. 23(A)(1), (3), and (4) requirements with an
affidavit and reference to undisputed facts, Judge Mentel says
there is no basis for disturbing the trial court's ruling on them
without any affirmative challenge from UT. Consequently, the review
of the trial court's decision will be limited to its conclusions
that Mr. Cross satisfied the requirements of Civ.R. 23(A)(2) and
(B)(3).

Judge Mentel finds that as an analysis of commonality, the trial
court's statement merely identifies an element common to all
litigation: whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a remedy. Apart
from that self-evident observation, the trial court's circular
reasoning simply repeats the language of Civ.R. 23(A), offering it
as both premise and conclusion. It fails to identify a single
question of law or fact raised by Mr. Cross's claims, much less
describe any element of commonality that makes a class action the
ideal method for resolution, Judge Mentel points out.

The trial court's sole statement concerning predominance is even
less rigorous, in spite of the fact that the Civ.R. 23(B)(3)
requirement "is even more demanding" than commonality under Civ.R.
23(A), Judge Mentel holds. Again, however, the trial court's
discussion does little more than repeat the language of the rule.

Judge Mentel says the parties' competing positions raise several
questions, and a rigorous analysis was required to answer them. But
no issue of commonality or predominance may be answered without
confronting them.

The trial court abused its discretion by ignoring these questions
and the parties' conflicting positions on how to resolve them,
Judge Mentel holds.

Instead of confronting the evolution of Mr. Cross' tuition-based
claims and the evidence he proposed would prove them, the trial
court reached back to the allegations as stated in the complaint,
Judge Mentel opines. The trial court went no further in addressing
how issues of commonality or predominance applied to the claims of
the Room and Board Class or the Fee Class either. A "rigorous
analysis" under Civ.R. 23 requires addressing these issues for all
classes proposed by Mr. Cross, Judge Mentel points out.

As with predominance, Judge Mentel finds the trial court's sole
reference to the superiority requirement under Civ.R. 23(B)(3)
lacks the rigor required to determine whether "a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy." The trial court stated that a class
action would be superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy, especially given the
desirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in this
forum.

Forum is irrelevant to the superiority analysis in the case, Judge
Mentel holds. There is no question of the "desirability or
undesirability" of the forum because the Court of Claims "has
exclusive, original jurisdiction" over Mr. Cross' claims.

For the reasons discussed, the Appellate Court concludes that it
was unreasonable for the trial court to certify the classes
proposed by Mr. Cross without a rigorous analysis of the issues of
commonality, predominance and superiority required by Civ.R. 23.

The little discussion the trial court provided was perfunctory,
conclusory, and failed to grapple with the relevant law and the
parties' arguments, Judge Mentel notes. It cannot be said to result
from a sound reasoning process.

Finally, Judge Mentel says this decision should not be read to
encourage or discourage certification on remand, a position on
which the Appellate Court remains necessarily agnostic.

For these reasons, the Appellate Court sustains UT's assignment of
error insofar as it asserts that the trial court erred in granting
Mr. Cross's motion for class certification under Civ.R. 23. The
decision of the Court of Claims of Ohio is reversed and this cause
is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mt3va8cf from Leagle.com.

Merriman Legando Williams & Klang, LLC, Drew Legando, Tom Merriman,
and Edward S. Jerse; Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, LLP,
and Jennifer Kraus-Czeisler; Evangelista Worley LLC, and James
Evangelista; Fink Bressack, David H. Fink, and Nathan J. Fink, for
the Appellee.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Randall W. Knutti, Peter DeMarco,
Jeanna Jacobus, and Michelle Brizes, for the Appellant.


WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Wilkerson's Certification Bid Denied in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge James A. Teilborg of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona denies in part the Plaintiff's motion
for preliminary certification and notice to potential opt-in
plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Andrea Wilkerson, Plaintiff v.
Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
CV-21-01427-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz.).

Defendants Walgreens Mail Service, LLC and Healthcare Support
Staffing, Inc. ("HSS") each filed responses opposing conditional
certification, and the Plaintiff replied to those responses.

HSS is a staffing agency that hires and places employees in
AllianceRx positions. HSS hired the Plaintiff, an Arizona resident,
to work remotely in Arizona for an AllianceRx call center.

The Plaintiff alleges that she and other employees working at
AllianceRx call centers were regularly scheduled to work 40 hours
per week but were not compensated for additional time spent turning
on their computers and opening programs before their shifts or for
turning off their computers after their shifts. She alleges that
this violates, among other laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq.

The Defendants each argue that preliminary certification should be
denied because the Plaintiff is not similarly situated to the
members of the proposed collective action. They also argue that, if
the Court were to grant preliminary certification, the resulting
notice should be limited to potential plaintiffs, who worked in
Arizona because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over claims
by out-of-state potential plaintiffs against them.

Because the question of which the Plaintiffs may join the proposed
collective action necessarily bears on whether those potential
plaintiffs are situated similarly to one another, the Court
considers limits to its personal jurisdiction before addressing
preliminary certification.

The Defendants argue that because the Supreme Court's holding in
Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137
S.Ct. 1773 (2017) requires that a district court have personal
jurisdiction over each defendant as to every claim by each
plaintiff, and because here each Defendant was incorporated and has
its principal place of business in states other than Arizona, the
Court holds it lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants with
respect to potential opt-in plaintiffs whose claims arose from
employment in other states.

For her part, the Plaintiff argues that Bristol-Meyers does not
apply to federal claims heard in federal court, and that finding
otherwise would be out of step with district courts in the Ninth
Circuit and would contravene Congressional intent by hindering
nationwide FLSA actions from being tried jointly. The Plaintiff
also argues that the Defendants have waived their personal
jurisdiction argument by failing to raise it prior to their
responses to her motion for preliminary certification.

A party waives a personal jurisdiction defense by failing to
include it in a Rule 12 motion or a responsive pleading. The
Defendants are not required "to seek dismissal of hypothetical
future plaintiffs," and cannot waive defenses that were not
available, Judge Teilborg notes, citing Moser v. Benefytt, Inc., 8
F.4th 872, 877-78 (9th Cir. 2021).

The only relevant parties with respect to whom the Defendants could
have waived a personal jurisdiction defense are, therefore,
out-of-state plaintiffs, who have already opted in. Opt-in
plaintiff Karole Rone (apparently the sole out-of-state opt-in
plaintiff) joined the suit by filing her written consent, prior to
the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC"). No Rule 12
motion has been filed since Rone opted in. Thus, the first
responsive pleading in which the Defendants could have failed to
raise a personal jurisdiction defense as to Rone was in answering
the SAC. HSS, in answering the SAC, denied that the Court has
personal jurisdiction over non-Arizona residents, and thus has not
waived its personal jurisdiction defense as to Rone or any other
out-of-state plaintiffs.

For its part, AllianceRx admitted that personal jurisdiction over
it was appropriate, at least with respect to Plaintiff Wilkerson.
However, whether Rone would continue as a plaintiff in the lawsuit
was ambiguous after the SAC was filed and before the present motion
was filed. Rone was neither named nor explicitly mentioned in the
Second Amended Complaint. And although the Second Amended Complaint
was filed on behalf of "Andrea Wilkerson, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals," subsequent
references are to a singular "Plaintiff" rather than plural
"Plaintiffs," Judge Teilborg notes.

Additionally, AllianceRx did raise a personal jurisdiction defense
in its answer, noting that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction
over Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy. Given the ambiguity regarding
whether Rone remained part of the lawsuit and whether personal
jurisdiction was, therefore, an available defense as to her claim,
and given that AllianceRx did assert a personal jurisdiction
defense in its answer to the SAC, the Court will not find that
AllianceRx waived its personal jurisdiction defense as to Rone.

But even if all Defendants had waived personal jurisdiction
defenses as to Rone, as a matter of efficiency and case management
it would still be appropriate at this juncture for the Court to
consider whether it would have personal jurisdiction over other
members of the proposed collective action: if the Court concludes
it would lack personal jurisdiction over out-of-state opt-in
plaintiffs, sending notice of the collective action to such
plaintiffs would be an exercise in futility, as the Defendants
could simply raise a personal-jurisdiction defense to each
individual opt-in plaintiff at the time each plaintiff filed his or
her written consent with the Court. The Court, therefore, will
proceed to consider the parties' arguments regarding personal
jurisdiction over the proposed collective.

The Court finds the reasoning of cases applying Bristol-Meyers in
FLSA collective actions more persuasive, and, therefore, agrees
with the Defendants that it would lack personal jurisdiction over
opt-in plaintiffs whose claims did not arise from Defendants'
contacts with Arizona.

In sum, no basis to assert personal jurisdiction other than Rule
4(k)(1)(A) presents itself. Rule 4(k)(1)(A) allows the Court to
reach only those claims over which an Arizona state court would
have jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of Arizona courts is
limited by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This
Clause requires a state court to have personal jurisdiction over
each defendant as to every claim by each plaintiff.

Because employment claims by potential opt-in plaintiffs employed
by the Defendants out of state cannot be said to have arisen from
the Defendants' activities in Arizona, a state court would lack
personal jurisdiction over those claims. Because a state court
would lack personal jurisdiction so--through operation of Rule
4(k)(1)(A)--will this Court. Accordingly, the portion of the
Defendants' motions requesting limitation of the potential opt-in
class to only those potential plaintiffs employed in Arizona will
be granted.

The Court has previously preliminarily certified collectives upon
submission of statements by plaintiffs of seventeen, eight, six,
and three persons claiming to be similarly situated to one another.
Because opt-in Plaintiff Rone must be excluded from the potential
class for want of personal jurisdiction over her claim, her
declaration is not probative of whether the Plaintiff is similarly
situated to an Arizona-only collective, Judge Teilborg holds. Put
differently, Rone's declaration cannot show that the Plaintiff is
similarly situated to a potential collective that Rone will not be
part of.

Judge Teilborg says this leaves the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary certification with only one supporting declaration: her
own.

Mindful that the Court's order limiting the potential collective to
Arizona plaintiffs may have been unexpected given the current state
of the law on this issue within the Ninth Circuit, that any denial
would likely be without prejudice, and that the burden at
preliminary certification is light, in the interest of efficiency
the Court will postpone ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary certification to permit the Plaintiff to submit
additional evidence showing that the Plaintiff is similarly
situated to members of an Arizona-only collective.

For these reasons, Judge Teilborg rules that the motion for
preliminary certification is denied in part. The potential FLSA
collective is limited to opt-in plaintiffs employed by the
Defendants in Arizona. The portion of the Plaintiff's motion
requesting certification of an Arizona class remains pending.

Opt-in Plaintiff Karole Rone's FLSA claims against the Defendants
are dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff may within 30 days file supplemental declarations of
additional potential opt-in plaintiffs or other evidence showing
that the Plaintiff is similarly situated to an Arizona-only
collective. The Defendants may then file responses limited to five
pages each with no attachments within 15 days of the Plaintiff's
submission of her supplemental evidence, and the Plaintiff may file
one reply limited to five pages with no attachments within 15 days
of the latest timely filed response.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/28w6wv97 from Leagle.com.


WISCONSIN: Clayborne's Bid to Certify Case as Class Action Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JACK A. CLAYBORNE, JUSTIN L. WILLIAMS,
JAMAL D. JONES and URIJAH DAVIS, Plaintiffs v. TRITI, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-694-pp (E.D. Wis.), Chief District Judge
Pamela Pepper of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin denies Clayborne's request to certify the case as a
class action.

On Aug. 26, 2022, the Court entered a case management order
directing plaintiffs Jack A. Clayborne, Robert D. Cartledge, Justin
L. Williams, Jamal D. Jones and Urijah Davis to comply with certain
requirements if they wanted to proceed jointly in this case. The
Court first ordered that if any Plaintiff no longer wished to
continue with the case, he must notify the Court in writing of his
desire to withdraw by the end of the day on Sept. 16, 2022.

On Sept. 15, 2022, the Court received Plaintiff Cartledge's notice
of his withdrawal. The Court has removed Cartledge from the docket
and will not assess him the filing fee.

The Court next ordered any plaintiff, who wished to proceed in the
case to submit either the $402 filing fee or a request to proceed
without prepaying the filing fee and certified trust account
statement by the end of the day on Sept. 30, 2022. The Court
previously had received requests to proceed without prepaying the
filing fee from Plaintiffs Clayborne, Jones and Davis. Only
Plaintiff Jones filed a current institutional trust account
statement.

The copy of the order sent to Plaintiffs Williams and Davis was
returned to the Court as undeliverable with a notation that reads,
"Not in Custody." The Court previously noted that neither of these
Plaintiffs is incarcerated at the Milwaukee County Jail. Neither
Plaintiff since has provided the Court with a current address.

Plaintiffs Williams and Davis' failure to keep the Court advised of
their addresses suggests they no longer wish to participate in the
litigation. The Court will dismiss these Plaintiffs without
prejudice and order the Clerk to terminate them from the docket.

The Court received from Plaintiff Clayborne a motion for an
extension of time to file his trust account statements. He says he
needs additional time "to request account statements" from various
jails where he has been incarcerated. He says he does not currently
have the postage for these requests, and the commissary "has been
out of stock on legal writing paper."

Mr. Clayborne also asks the Court to "certify this case as a CLASS"
because the claims have common questions of law and facts for all
Plaintiffs. He asks the Court to appoint him as counsel because
inmates usually do not represent other inmates. He also says "this
case is too complex to be litigated by an inmate." He asserts that
he needs a private investigator to find other Plaintiffs -- Justin
L. Williams and Urijah Davis.

Mr. Clayborne labels the motion as if it was filed on behalf of all
Plaintiffs, but he is the only Plaintiff who signed the motion,
Judge Pepper states. Because no other plaintiff signed this motion,
and because each plaintiff is representing only himself, the Court
construes Clayborne's motion as being brought only on his own
behalf.

The Court will grant Clayborne's request for additional time to
file certified copies of his institutional trust account
statements. He must file them in time for the Court to receive them
by the deadline the Court will set at the end of this order. If
Clayborne does not file all relevant trust account statements
(statements covering the six-month period from December 2021 to
June 2022) by the deadline, or notify the Court in writing why he
cannot do so, the Court may dismiss him from this case.

The Court will deny Clayborne's request to certify this case as a
class action. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4), a
single representative may represent a proposed class only if the
representative party will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. That requirement has caused courts in this
circuit and others to decline to allow a self-represented
incarcerated person to represent a class in a class action.

The Court also will deny Clayborne's request that the Court recruit
counsel to represent him in this lawsuit. Courts in this district
have informed Clayborne that it is premature to request appointment
of a lawyer before the Court has had an opportunity to screen the
complaint. The Court also has informed Clayborne that incarcerated
plaintiffs seeking counsel must "try to find counsel on their own
and be able to provide proof they contacted at least three
attorneys before they can file a motion asking the court to appoint
counsel on their behalf."

Mr. Clayborne's request does not satisfy that requirement, Judge
Pepper holds. He has not alleged that he has made any effort to
obtain counsel on his own. The Court has the ability to deny his
request for that reason alone.

Mr. Clayborne also has not satisfied the second requirement for
recruiting counsel for indigent plaintiffs--showing that he is
incapable of adequately litigating the case on his own. He has not
given the Court any reason to believe he is incapable of adequately
representing his own interests. Clayborne may be correct that
litigating this large-scale case will be difficult. That is
precisely why the court entered the case management order informing
the Plaintiffs of the inherent difficulties in bringing a joint
case and gave each Plaintiff the option to withdraw from the case
without penalty to file his own lawsuit. Clayborne's decision to
proceed in this multiple-plaintiff lawsuit is not reason to recruit
counsel to assist him, Judge Pepper points out.

The Court dismisses without prejudice Plaintiffs Justin L. Williams
and Urijah Davis for their failure to provide a current address.

It grants Clayborne's motion for an extension of time to file his
institutional trust account statements. Clayborne must file his
trust account statements in time for the court to receive them by
the end of the day on Nov. 25, 2022. If by the end of the day on
Nov. 25, 2022, the Court has not received all necessary trust
account statements, or Clayborne has not notified the Court in
writing why he cannot provide them, it may dismiss him from this
lawsuit.

Hence, the Court denies Plaintiff Clayborne's request to certify
this case as a class action.

The Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff Clayborne's request
that the Court recruit him counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4xruzn32 from Leagle.com.


WYNN RESORTS: Ferris Wins Bid to Recuse Magistrate Judge Youchah
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada issued an order in the lawsuit titled JOHN
V. FERRIS and JOANN M. FERRIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WYNN RESORTS LIMITED,
STEPHEN A. WYNN, CRAIG SCOTT BILLINGS, STEPHEN COOTEY, MATTHEW O.
MADDOX, JOHN J. HAGENBUCH, ROBERT J. MILLER, PATRICIA MULROY, CLARK
T. RANDT JR., ALVIN V. SHOEMAKER, KIMMARIE SINATRA, DANIEL B.
WAYSON, JAY L. JOHNSON, RAY R. IRANI, and J. EDWARD VIRTUE,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00479-APG-EJY (D. Nev.):

   (1) granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Recusal filed on
       July 13, 2022;

   (2) granting Defendants' Wynn Resorts, LTD, and Matthew
       Maddox's Motion for Leave to file Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs'
       Reply in Support of Motion for Recusal; and

   (3) referring this action to the Clerk of Court for random
       assignment of the case for all further proceedings.

Judge Youchah states that she first took the bench as a U.S.
Magistrate Judge on Aug. 6, 2019, at which time she placed Wynn
Resorts on her recusal list where it remained for two years. This
matter was randomly reassigned to her on Aug. 17, 2021.

As stated by the Plaintiffs in their Second Amended Complaint (the
"SAC"), the lawsuit is a federal securities class action, against
the Company and certain of its directors and executive officers, on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities between Feb. 28, 2014, and Feb. 12, 2018, both
dates inclusive (the Class Period), seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Judge Youchah issued her first substantive order in the matter on
Oct. 4, 2021, denying a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling
order, and requiring the parties to take various steps regarding
electronically stored information, a proposed stipulated
confidentiality and protective order, and phased discovery. On Oct.
25, 2021, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed separate proposed
discovery plans and scheduling order, which Judge Youchah
considered at a one hour hearing held on Nov. 8, 2021.

Judge Youchah denied the Plaintiffs' proposed discovery plan and
scheduling order without prejudice, and granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' proposal. At that hearing, Judge Youchah
stated she understood "the basic underlying facts" of the case
because it's hard to live in Las Vegas and not know those. She has
lived in Las Vegas for almost 30 years.

On Dec. 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel, which
Judge Youchah set for hearing on Jan. 25, 2022. Judge Youchah held
her second hearing in this case on that date. The hearing resulted
in granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion.

On April 18, 2022, the Defendants filed a Motion to Compel. On June
28, 2022, Judge Youchah held her third hearing in this case to
address the Defendants' Motion. The hearing lasted approximately
one hour at the end of which she granted the Defendants' Motion.

The Plaintiffs state, through the Declaration of Elina Rakhlin (the
counsel for the Plaintiffs), that counsel first discovered new
facts concerning Judge Youchah's background during the week of June
27, 2022. Their counsel further states it was the upcoming deadline
for their class certification opening brief that prompted their
internet research into the background.

The research discovered an article about a case brought in
California, in which Judge Youchah is not a party, alleging, in
sum, corruption in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada, citing a news article from "Casino.org" entitled "Federal
Appeals Court Won't Toss RICO Case vs. Steve Wynn, Wynn Resorts" by
Philip Conneller, dated April 25, 2022.

Judge Youchah says it was only then--approximately one year after
she was randomly assigned this matter and had issued several
substantive decisions--that the Plaintiffs claim they first
discovered publicly available information regarding her role as
counsel for Wynn Resorts while in private practice.

The case on which the Plaintiffs are focused is a Title VII case,
filed in 2018, challenged and decided solely on the basis of the
applicable time-bar, and in which discovery was stayed. The case,
Limcaco v. Wynn Resorts, Ltd., et al., is found at Case No.
18-cv-01685-MMD-GWF.

More specifically, Limcaco was decided on a motion to dismiss by
District Judge Miranda M. Du because she found Limcaco's federal
claims were time-barred. Consistent with the law, all allegations
of fact in that case were presumed true at the time the motion to
dismiss was filed.

Nonetheless counsel for the Plaintiffs in this action have
concluded there is "reason to question" whether, by virtue of her
brief involvement in Limcaco, she gained personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts in this Action, Judge Youchah says.

The Plaintiffs allege Judge Youchah's October 2018 through early
April 2019 representation of Wynn Resorts in Limcaco was a new
discovery despite paragraph 199 of the Plaintiffs' SAC citing to
the Limcaco case.

More than two years lapsed between the cessation of Judge Youchah's
representation of Wynn in Limcaco on April 2, 2019, and her random
assignment to this case in August 2021. Further, discovery was
stayed in Limcaco in December 2018. As the granted Motion to Stay
Discovery portended, no discovery was conducted in the Limcaco
matter.

The Plaintiffs contend that because Judge Youchah knew about events
alleged in Limcaco's Complaint, as well as reported by the Wall
Street Journal on Jan. 26, 2018 (eight months before Ms. Limcaco
filed her Complaint and nine months before Judge Youchah appeared
as counsel for Wynn Las Vegas), Limcaco cited an "IEB Report"
extensively in her Second Amended Complaint, and Judge Youchah
indicated, as cited, a general awareness of underlying events,
Judge Youchah have some knowledge or information that creates a
bias requiring recusal.

Judge Youchah notes that the Plaintiffs' Motion was filed almost
one year after she was assigned to this matter in August 2021
(which was more than two years after she ceased her representation
of Wynn Resorts on April 2, 2019), two years after the Plaintiffs
referenced Limcaco in their SAC filed July 1, 2020, and
approximately two weeks after she issued a ruling against the
Plaintiffs on a Motion to Compel. The explanation offered by the
Plaintiffs--that they began to research her background
approximately twenty minutes after this adverse ruling based on an
upcoming due date for a class certification motion--is not
persuasive, Judge Youchah holds. These facts, when applied to the
law, militate against recusal.

Despite no actual bias or prejudice and suspect timing, the Court
finds the potential for a reasonable person with knowledge of all
the facts could conclude Judge Youchah impartiality might be
reasonably questioned.

"It is with reluctance, after a great deal of thought and careful
consideration, that I decide to recuse myself from this matter,"
Judge Youchah wrote. "I take my duty as a judge sitting on the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
seriously."

"My role is one of significant responsibility to my colleagues,
litigants, counsel, and the community. After almost 30 years as a
lawyer it is surprising to find a claim of bias or prejudice would
be raised. Nonetheless, because of the unique circumstances here,
and what matters is appearance, I cannot jeopardize this litigation
based on my personal knowledge that fairness and the Rule of Law
are always the tenets under which I act," Judge Youchah says.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5xzp86yr from Leagle.com.


YAMHILL COUNTY, OR: Summary Judgment in Eastwood Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JOY EASTWOOD, On Behalf of Minor M.E.,
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. YAMHILL COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants-third-party-plaintiffs-Appellees v. CORRECT CARE
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Third-party-defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-35331
(9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment in
favor of the Defendants.

Joy Eastwood, on behalf of her minor son M.E., appeals the district
court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Yamhill County and
third-party Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC ("CCS"). M.E.
filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 lawsuit against Yamhill County
alleging that he and other juveniles were deprived of their
Fourteenth Amendment due process rights while in custody at Yamhill
County Juvenile Detention Center ("YCJDC").

As a threshold matter, Yamhill County argues that M.E. waived all
substantive arguments by failing to set out clear arguments in his
Opening Brief. M.E.'s brief fails to comply with Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A), which requires a brief to contain
"appellant's contentions and the reasons for them, with citations
to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant
relies." Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals addresses the merits of
M.E.'s arguments because he has raised discrete issues for its
review, and they have been fully briefed.

The Court of Appeals holds that the district court did not err in
granting summary judgment in favor of Yamhill County on M.E.'s
Section 1983 claim. It analyzes a Section 1983 claim against a
municipality using the framework set forth in Monell v. Dep't of
Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). To establish
a Monell claim against Yamhill County, M.E. must prove: "(1) that
[he] possessed a constitutional right of which []he was deprived;
(2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy
amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's
constitutional right; and, (4) that the policy is the moving force
behind the constitutional violation."

The first prong is not satisfied here: M.E. fails to establish that
he was deprived of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The
district court reviewed the magistrate judge's report on M.E.'s
claims about the conditions at YCJDC and concluded that M.E. was
not "at substantial risk of suffering serious harm." The Court of
Appeals agrees with the district court that the treatment did not
rise to the level of deliberate indifference.

M.E. claims that he disliked his food, had a broken water fountain
in his cell, slept on an uncomfortable bed, was required to
exercise for two hours per day, and was spoken to disrespectfully
by staff, but there is no evidence that these conditions placed him
at "substantial risk of suffering serious harm," the Court of
Appeals opines.

Similarly, that M.E. did not receive mental health medication from
Nov. 7 to Nov. 8, 2016, and experienced delays receiving his
medication on Aug. 8, 2017, and Sept. 8, 2017, does not establish
that he was at substantial risk of serious harm. The Court of
Appeals points out that it treats claims alleging deficient medical
care "substantially the same as other conditions of confinement
violations," applying the objective deliberate indifference test.

Although Yamhill County does not dispute that M.E. was taking
psychotropic medications at the time, including Lexapro, Xanax
(alprazolam), and Adderall, M.E. did not provide any medical
evidence about his mental health conditions. Notably, he did not
provide evidence from a treating physician explaining the effects
of missing his medication. M.E. failed to show he had a "serious
medical need," which if left untreated for the brief periods in
question, could result in further significant injury or the
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.

The conditions of M.E.'s confinement during the short times he was
incarcerated did not violate his constitutional rights, the Court
of Appeals holds. Accordingly, the district court did not err in
granting summary judgment in favor of Yamhill County on the Section
1983 claim.

Affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Oct. 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/28wm8zan from Leagle.com.


YOUNG LIVING: Objection to Arbitration Denial in Penhall Sustained
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David Barlow of the U.S. District Court for the District Utah
sustains the Defendant's objection to one part of the Order in the
lawsuit captioned LINDSAY PENHALL, SARAH MALDONADO, and TIFFANIE
RUNNELS, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS,
LC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00617-DBB-CMR (D. Utah).

The matter before the Court is the Defendant's Objections to the
Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration
(the "Order").

The Plaintiffs are former Young Living distributors. To be a
distributor, they had to agree to Young Living's Member Agreement,
Policies and Procedures ("P&Ps"), and Compensation Plan
(collectively the "Agreement"). While Young Living periodically
revised the documents, all versions of the P&Ps contained the same
arbitration clause: "If mediation is unsuccessful, any controversy
or claim arising out of or relating to the Agreement, or the breach
thereof, will be settled by arbitration. The parties waive all
rights to trial by jury or to any court."

The pre-2019 version of the Member Agreement also had a forum
selection clause: "Any legal action concerning the Agreement will
be brought in the state and federal courts located in Salt Lake
City, Utah."

In December 2019, Young Living published a new Member Agreement
that replaced the forum selection clause with a statement that the
parties consent to "jurisdiction and venue before any state or
federal court located in Salt Lake City, Utah, for any legal action
not subject to arbitration, including for purposes of enforcing an
award by an arbitrator, or any other matter not subject to
arbitration as specified in the Policies and Procedures."

The revised P&Ps had the same arbitration clause incorporating the
JAMS rules ("2020 Arbitration Agreement") as the previous versions.
The revised P&Ps also contained a retroactive clause in the dispute
resolution section, which stated that "Amendments will not apply
retroactively to conduct that occurred prior to the effective date
of the amendment unless expressly accepted by the member."

Ms. Runnels enrolled with Young Living on Sept. 4, 2014; Ms.
Maldonado enrolled on Dec. 19, 2018; and Ms. Penhall enrolled on
May 24, 2018. In November 2018, Ms. Penhall's membership was
terminated due to inactivity.

On March 3, 2020, Ms. Penhall logged into Young Living's website to
recover documentation from her former account. Because her
membership had been terminated, she had to reenroll to gain access
to her account, which meant buying Young Living products at
wholesale prices. She was presented with a clickwrap agreement that
included hyperlinks to the revised 2019 Member Agreement and the
2020 P&Ps, a statement that "I have read and agree to be bound by
the terms and conditions of the Agreement," and a checkbox
accompanied by the following text: "By clicking this box, I agree
to these statements and to be bound by the terms and conditions of
the Agreement." Ms. Penhall clicked the checkbox and advanced to
the shopping page.

Before completing her purchase, Ms. Penhall then had to click
another checkbox next to the following text: "By placing your
order, you agree to Young Living's Policies and Procedures." The
phrase "Young Living's Policies and Procedures" was hyperlinked to
the 2020 P&Ps.

The Plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against Young Living
in the Southern District of California on Dec. 6, 2019. The
district court transferred the case to the District of Utah on Aug.
17, 2020. After Young Living's first motion to dismiss and compel
arbitration was denied as moot when the Court granted the
Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint, Young Living moved to
compel arbitration and stay proceedings on Sept. 27, 2021. Young
Living's motion was denied on Aug. 29, 2022.

On Sept. 12, 2022, Young Living objected to one part of the Order.
Young Living contended that the 2020 Arbitration Agreement was
valid, enforceable, and that it was undisputed that Ms. Penhall
intended to enter the Agreement.

Young Living objects only to the part of the Order concerning the
need for a summary trial to determine whether Ms. Penhall is bound
by the 2020 Arbitration Agreement.

The parties disagree about the standard of review the Court should
apply. Given an objection, if the motion to compel is
non-dispositive, then the Court will modify or set aside an order
if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. But if the motion to
compel is dispositive, the Court will review an order de novo.
Courts in the Tenth Circuit have applied both standards on a motion
to compel arbitration. The Court need not decide this issue because
the result here is the same under either standard.

The Order found that there were questions of fact about whether Ms.
Penhall accepted the 2020 P&Ps. It highlighted Ms. Penhall's claim
that "she 'never intended' to enter a new agreement with a company
she had sued three months prior, and that if she did so, 'it was by
mistake.'" The Order also noted that the issue of notice was
relevant. On that basis, the Order reasoned that the question of
whether Ms. Penhall intended to accept the agreement was a "dispute
of material fact that prevented the court from determining whether
the 2020 Arbitration Agreement was a valid agreement to arbitrate
between Penhall" and Young Living. It concluded that the factual
dispute dictated a summary trial.

Concerning Ms. Penhall's claim that she did not remember seeing the
Agreement's terms, Judge Barlow notes that courts routinely hold
such failure of memory to be insufficient to invalidate a clickwrap
agreement. Likewise, there is no support here for the proposition
that the agreement could be invalidated for a lack of "meeting of
the minds" because one of the parties made a "mistake." Ms. Penhall
had the opportunity to read the clickwrap agreement and the
hyperlinked P&Ps containing the 2020 Arbitration Agreement. Judge
Barlow holds that she cannot avoid the contract on the ground of
mistake if she signed it without reading it or if she read it and
no longer remembers that she did.

The Order next reasoned that the issue of whether Penhall received
notice was at least relevant to whether there was a meeting of the
minds and is another issue of fact that may be addressed at a
summary trial.

The Court agrees that notice is relevant. The Arbitration Agreement
was available to read, easy to find, and made plain that claims
involving the Agreement would be settled by binding arbitration.
Young Living gave Ms. Penhall adequate notice. And because the
clickwrap agreement gave Ms. Penhall reasonable notice and she
affirmatively manifested assent to the terms, the clickwrap
agreement was valid.

The only issue remaining is the scope of the 2020 Arbitration
Agreement -- specifically, whether it applied retroactively to Ms.
Penhall's claims. While the Plaintiffs' Response focuses heavily on
the retroactivity issue -- indeed, very nearly to the exclusion of
the actual issue before this Court -- the Order did not decide that
issue and Young Living's objection is not based upon it. Therefore,
the Court does not address it.

For these reasons, the Court sustains the Defendant's Objections to
the Memorandum Decision and Order. The Court vacates Part IV.C of
the Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
Oct. 27, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ymsexchn 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 ***