/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221123.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, November 23, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 228

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Allen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
ABIOMED INC: Monteverde Probes Potential Securities Violations
ADOLFO MEAT: Collado Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS: Monteverde Probes Securities Fraud Claims
AKOUOS INC: Monteverde Probes Potential Securities Violations

ALLIANCE AUTO PARTS: Vazquez Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation
ALLPRO PARKING: Boone Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALTRA INDUSTRIAL: M&A Law Firm Probes Potential Securities Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Carlisle Suit Removed to N.D. California
AMAZON.COM INC: Martinho Suit Removed to N.D. California

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Mckenzie Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN WOODMARK: Boguett Suit Removed to C.D. California
ANGIE'S LIST: Anderson Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
APOLLONIA LLC: Class Action Suit Over St. Renatus Merger Certified
ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Aula Sues Over Concealment of Defects

ARC AUTOMOTIVE: McCarthy Files Suit in D. New Jersey
ARCHAEA ENERGY: Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Violations
ASSURANCE IQ: Schneider Sues Over Non-Competition Law Violations
ATLAS AIR: Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Violations
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Court Decertifies Classes in Mason's Suit

AVALARA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 6, 2023
AYALA PHARMACEUTICALS: Monteverde Probes Securities Fraud Claims
BAR VEGAN: Georgia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: Remand of Rojas Suit to Superior Court Denied
BAYER CORPORATION: Bullard Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

BAYER CORPORATION: Trotter Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Byrd Sues Over Defective and Toxic Collars
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses 2nd Amended Truss Class Complaint
BE MONEY: Stipulated Protective Order Entered in Guarnieri Suit
BECTON AND DICKINSON: Aguila Suit Removed to N.D. California

BEFORE BRANDS: Faces Harris Suit Over Food Products' Deceptive Ads
BELIV LLC: S.D.N.Y. Narrows Kelly's Claims Over Misleading Label
BENEFITFOCUS INC: Monteverde Probes Securities Fraud Claims
BEYOND MEAT: Borovoy Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: Criste Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices

BIRD GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 17, 2023
BLOCK INC: Gordon Sues to Redress Negligence Over Sensitive PII
BLUE CROSS: Class in C.P. Certified; Exclusion of Carr Report Nixed
BMO TRUST: Settles Undisclosed Fees' Class Action for $100-Mil.
BP EXPLORATION: Prest's Claims Dismissed; Ross Opinions Struck

BPS DIRECT: Wiretaps Basspro.Com Website Visitors, Tucker Alleges
BRAZYN LIFE: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BROOKS LIMO TRANSPORTATION: Silva Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
BWC HARVEY: Court Narrows Terrell's Claims Over Noxious Odors
CAKE 5332: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage

CALIFORNIA: Bid to Certify Class in DB v. CDPH, DHHS, et al. Denied
CALIFORNIA: Court Allows Lake to Amend Prisoner Complaint v. CDCR
CARPENTERS OF WESTERN: Court Denies Johnson's Bids to Strike Claims
CCA GLOBAL PARTNERS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CIGNA HEALTH: Court Allows Two More Depositions in RJ Class Suit

CLEAN HARBORS: Villamar Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages Earned
COMMUNITY LOAN: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Leszczynski Says
COMPASS INC: Sheppard's Bids to Remand and for Atty.'s Fees Denied
CONAGRA BRANDS: Wins Bid to Reassign Ruiz Suit to Judge Gettleman
CREDIT LINK LLC: Frazier FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

DIRECTV LLC: Court Defers Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Vance Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Williams Suit Removed to M.D. Alabama
DOT COMPLIANCE GROUP: Gordon Sues to Recover Unpaid, Overtime Wages
DOUGHP INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DYNCORP INT'L: Court Grants Del Fierro's Class Certification Bid

EINSTEIN ASSOCIATES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Court Reviews Partial Dismissal of Faulker Suit
FASHION NOVA: Stewart Sues Over False & Misleading Price Reduction
FCA US: Hunter Suit Removed to N.D. California
FLAGSTAR BANK: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Saucedo Suit Says

FONTERRA COOPERATIVE: Settles Farmers' Class Suit for A$25-Mil.
FPI MANAGEMENT INC: Servin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FTX TRADING: Faces Class Action Over Unregistered Securities
GANNETT CO: Must Face Class Action Over Mismanaged 401(k) Plans
GOOD FUN FOODS: Blanco Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

GREAT DANE: Bouzekri Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
GREEN DOT: Class Settlement in Boardman Suit Gets Final Approval
GROENDYKE TRANSPORT: Seeks to Stay Brown Conditional Status Bid
GROSSMONT HOSPITAL: Cranton Suit Remanded to San Diego State Court
HARRISBURG LIV: Fails to Pay Shift Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA

HOMESPIRE MORTGAGE: Lewis Sues Over Loan Officers' Unpaid Wages
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Lausche Suit Removed to C.D. California
HUMPHREYS COUNTY, TN: Hagler Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
HUNTSMAN ADVANCED: Irizarry Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
INJURED WORKERS: D. Mass. Dismisses Data Breach Class Action

INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Navarrete Suit Removed to E.D. California
ISCO MACHINERY: Faces West Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
JOHN HIESTER: Bid for Summary Judgment in Beard TCPA Suit Granted
JORDAN RESTAURANT: FLSA Class Gets Conditional Status in Hood Suit
KARMA AND LUCK: Mohr Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging

KIA AMERICA: Alston Sues Over Fraudulent Business Practices
KIA AMERICA: Parker Files Suit in D. South Carolina
KOOZIE GROUP: Agrees to Settle WARN Class Action for $350,000
LANE BRYANT: Cole Suit Removed to N.D. California
LINCARE INC: Deason Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DOH: Cortes Suit Removed to C.D. California
MACY'S.COM LLC: Brito Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls
MAHENDRA AMIN: Joint Update in Medchoice Suit Due Feb. 1, 2023
MDL 1720: Visa's Motion for Summary Judgment in Halycon Suit Denied
MDL 2741: Monsanto Wins Summary Judgment in Tam Roundup Suit

MDL 2873: Odinaev Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
META PLATFORMS: Bailey Sues Over Intercepted Private Browsing
META PLATFORMS: Does Balk at Illegal Personal Info Collection
MHC HERITAGE: Seeks to Strike Jeffrey Rothbart Expert Report
MICHIGAN: Court Certifies Class of Beneficiaries in D.D. v. MDHHS

MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over AI-Based GitHub Copilot
MID-SOUTH ADJUSTMENT: Certification of Class in Smith Suit Upheld
MINDBODY INC: Ct. Awards $2.9M to Lead Attorneys in Securities Suit
MMFC LLC: Corado Sues Over Failure to Pay Legally Mandated Wages
MW MANUFACTUERS: Bryant Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensations

NATIONAL SECURITIES: Court Issues Final Judgment in Ginzkey Suit
NATIONAL SECURITIES: Ginzkey's Counsel Awarded $1.86-Mil. in Fees
NATIONAL SPINE: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Scoma TCPA Suit
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Deceptive Boost Glucose Control Drinks
NEW SOUTH WALES: Sued Over Sydney Light Rail Project Works

NISOURCE INC: Hardy Sues Over Welding Inspectors' Unpaid Wages
NISSAN MOTOR: Defective Front Floors' Suit Settlement Gets Final OK
NVIDIA CORP: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Melting 12VHPWR Cables
NWESTCO LLC: Guerrero Suit Remanded to Sacramento Superior Court
OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 17

ON THE GROUND: Fails to Pay Field Workers' Minimum and OT Wages
ONANAFE MANAGEMENT: McLaughlin Seeks Janitors' Minimum & OT Wages
OSMO NUTRITION: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Liu Sues Over Securities Act Violation
PARATEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Avent Seeks Sales Specialists' Unpaid OT

PARSEC INC: Johnson Suit Removed to C.D. California
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 5
PENNSYLVANIA: Entry of Summary Judgment in Stradford v. DOC Vacated
PFIZER INC: LaMotte Files Suit in D. Minnesota
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Carter Files Privacy Class Action

POLISHED.COM INC: Maschhoff Sues Over False Registration Statements
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Forbes Sues Over Charcoal Toothbrushes' False Ads
R.C. BIGELOW INC: Newton Files Suit in E.D. New York
RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Nelson Files Suit in D. New Mexico
RADIUS GLOBAL: Hoenig Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices

RAPID FINANCIAL: Bid to Certify Class in Watkins Suit Granted
REALPAGE INC: Lazarte Sues Over Artificially Raised Rental Prices
RENT THE RUNWAY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 13
RESOURCE ONE CREDIT: Harris Sues Over Improper Fee Charges
RISE SERVICES: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Dec. 23

RITE AID: Loses Bid to Stay Stafford Suit Pending Washington Appeal
ROBINSON NURSING: Arbitration Order in Phillips Suit Remanded
RUSHMORE SERVICE: Arbitration Bid in Pistone FDCPA Suit Denied
S.B.S. LIEN SERVICES: Patton Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
SAINT MARYS COLLEGE: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York

SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Settlement in Adams-Gillard Gets Final Approval
SEPHORA USA: "Clean" Products Use Synthetic Ingredients, Suit Says
SIDWELL AIR: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Roberts Suit
SIERRA NEVADA MEMORIAL-MINERS: Lane Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Horowitz Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses

SPENCER GIFTS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Wiretaps Spirit.com Website Visitors, Smidga Says
STAR ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Second Class Suit Over Non-Compliance
STERLING VALLEY: Rowe Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit W/o Prejudice
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss COVID Refund Suit

TEK ONE LLC: Brito Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
TEKBERRY INC: Faces Esau Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
TELEXFREE INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Litigation
TORRID HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 14
TOYOTA MOTOR: Perez Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 22, 2023

TRANSAMERICA LIFE: BOAGF Sues Over Unfair Life Insurance Policies
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Filing of Class Status Bid Due April 21, 2023
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Court Narrows Claims in Rand Suit
U.S. FINANCIAL: Law Firms Feud Over Class Action Settlement Fees
ULTA BEAUTY: District Court Orders Hansber & Moreno to Arbitration

UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Faces Camenisch Class Suit
UNITED STATES: Settlement in Student Debt Relief Suit Gets Final OK
US BANCORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 27
VINTAGE WINE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 13, 2023
WASHINGTON: District Court Narrows Claims in Sterling v. Feek

WATER WIPES: Faces Lopez Suit Over Water Wipes' Deceptive Ads
WATTS UP SOLAR: Heidarpour Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
WELLS FARGO: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in California Court
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Pressley Class Suit Ongoing
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Shanklin Breach of Contract Suit Pending

WILL RICHARDSON: Shelley Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls
XANADU MARKETING: Hall Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
ZOOM VIDEO: Court Approves Two Objector Settlements in Privacy Suit

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Allen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Stallings Allen, as Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of William
Orlando Allen, deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-03288-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 26, 2022), is brought for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Ann Stallings Allen is the duly-appointed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of William
Orlando Allen, who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products.

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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456


ABIOMED INC: Monteverde Probes Potential Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

ABIOMED, Inc. (Nasdaq: ABMD), relating to its proposed acquisition
by Johnson & Johnson. Under the terms of the tender offer, ABMD
shareholders will receive $380.00 in cash per share they own. Click
link for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/abiomed-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

                About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.[GN]

ADOLFO MEAT: Collado Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Collado and Jenny Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ADOLFO MEAT MARKET CORP. and EUCEBIO
ADOLFO MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-09366 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2022),
is brought against the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law by willfully failing
to pay the Plaintiffs overtime compensation; by failing to timely
pay the the Plaintiffs their full amount of wages every week; and
by failing to provide the Plaintiffs with the required payroll
notices and wage statements.

The Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees pursuant to the FLSA and
the NYLL and were entitled to overtime compensation for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per week. Despite routinely working more
than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiffs were not paid overtime
compensation of one and one-half times their regular hourly rates
of pay or the applicable minimum wage rate, whichever is greater,
for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.

AMMC is a domestic corporation with its principal place of business
located in Bronx, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katherine Morales, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 460-0047
          Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
          Email: kymorales@katzmelinger.com


AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS: Monteverde Probes Securities Fraud Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

AgroFresh Solutions, Inc. (AGFS), relating to its proposed
acquisition by Paine Schwartz Partners. Under the terms of the
agreement, AGFS shareholders are expected to receive $3.00 in cash
per share they own. Click link for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/agrofresh-solutions-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

              About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.[GN]

AKOUOS INC: Monteverde Probes Potential Securities Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Akouos, Inc. (Nasdaq: AKUS), relating to its proposed acquisition
by Eli Lilly and Company. Under the terms of the tender offer, AKUS
shareholders are expected to receive $12.50 in cash plus one CVR of
up to $3.00 per share they own. Click link for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/akouos-inc. It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.

                About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.[GN]

ALLIANCE AUTO PARTS: Vazquez Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abel Vazquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Alliance Auto Parts, Inc. and Paul Zanini, Case No.
1:22-cv-06888 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2022), is for unpaid minimum wage
and overtime wage orders pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Lab. Law, and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commission of Labor, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per
week that he performed. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked over 40 hours and paid him at
straight time, which is against the appropriate Labor Laws. The
Defendants maintain a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendants primarily employed
as a laborer.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a company located in
Queens, New York, under the name "Alliance Auto Parts."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          Toneille Raglan, Esq.
          RAGLAN AND STILLMAN LLP
          42 Broadway, 12t Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 203-2417
          Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com


ALLPRO PARKING: Boone Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Boone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALLPRO PARKING, LLC, ALLPRO PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC, and
PREMIUM PARTNER HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00862 (W.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 10, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid wages, overtime
compensation, damages, penalties and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and under McKinney's Labor
Law.

The Defendants have engaged in illegal and improper wage practices
that have deprived Hourly Employees of millions of dollars in wages
and overtime compensation. These practices include improperly
compensating Hourly Employees based only upon their scheduled hours
rather than the actual time they worked; and automatically
deducting time for meal breaks when employees are performing work
during that time. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to provide
Hourly Employees with appropriate pay rate acknowledgement forms
and weekly wage statements. These illegal practices and policies
are uniform throughout all of the Defendants' locations and have
been known to Defendants for years, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by AllPro since September 22, 2017,
as an Hourly Employee.

AllPro provides parking services throughout New York, Pennsylvania,
and Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett Gallaway, Esq.
          Lee Shalov, Esq.
          Jason Giaimo, Esq.
          Charles Kellett, Esq.
          McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
          260 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 448-1100
          Email: bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
                 lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
                 jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com
                 ckellett@mclaughlinstern.com


ALTRA INDUSTRIAL: M&A Law Firm Probes Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Altra Industrial Motion Corp. (Nasdaq: AIMC), relating to its
proposed acquisition by Regal Rexnord Corp. Under the terms of the
agreement, AIMC shareholders are expected to receive $62.00 in cash
per share they own. Click link for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/altra-industrial-motion-corp. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

              About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.[GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Carlisle Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Carlisle, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM
SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation; AMAZON WEB
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 22CV014326 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 3,
2022, and assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-06856.

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: violation of
Labor Code (Vacation); Breach of Written Contract; and Unfair
Business Practices (Violation of California Business & Professions
Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven A. Groode, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          1255 Treat Blvd., Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Phone: 925.932.2468
          Fax: 925.946.9809
          Email: sgroode@littler.com

               - and –

          Anthony Ly, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Phone: 310.553.0308
          Fax: 310.553.5583
          Email: aly@littler.com

               - and –

          Erin N. Collins, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          633 West Fifth Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213.443.4300
          Fax: 213.443.4299
          Email: ecollins@littler.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Martinho Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Martinho, as an individual and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation;
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation;
AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22CV014328 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Nov. 3, 2022, and assigned Case No.
3:22-cv-06849-LB.

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure to
Pay Regular and Minimum Wages, Labor Code; and Unfair Business
Practices (Violation of California Business & Professions
Code).[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven A. Groode, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          1255 Treat Blvd., Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Phone: 925.932.2468
          Fax: 925.946.9809
          Email: sgroode@littler.com

               - and –

          Anthony Ly, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Phone: 310.553.0308
          Fax: 310.553.5583
          Email: aly@littler.com

               - and –

          Erin N. Collins, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          633 West Fifth Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213.443.4300
          Fax: 213.443.4299
          Email: ecollins@littler.com


AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Mckenzie Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Edward Mckenzie, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, aDelaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB
2217659 was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior Court,
State of California, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Nov. 10, 2022, and assigned Case
No. 5:22-cv-01987.

In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges seven causes of action
against Amazon: Failure to Pay Lawful Wages; Failure to Provide
Lawful Meal Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to
Provide Lawful Rest Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof;
Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Timely
Pay Wages Due at Termination; Knowing and Intentional Failure to
Comply with Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions; and
Violations of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213.229.7000
          Facsimile: 213.229.7520
          Email: KSmith@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Megan Cooney, Esq.
          KATIE M. MAGALLANES, SBN 300277
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Phone: 949.451.3800
          Facsimile: 949.451.4220
          Email: MCooney@gibsondunn.com
                 KMagallanes@gibsondunn.com


AMERICAN WOODMARK: Boguett Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ashley Boguett, individually, on a
representative basis, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
v. AMERICAN WOODMARK CORPORATION, a Virginia Corporation; RSI HOME
PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES l through 20,
inclusive; Case No. CVRI2204300 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State
of California in and for the County of Riverside, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Nov. 10, 2022, and assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01983.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts 7 purported causes of action for:
failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages;
failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest breaks;
failure to timely pay final wages; failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; and unfair and unlawful competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
          Andrew W. Russell, Esq.
          Natalie M. Lagunas, Esq.
          Sarah Y. Oh, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 315-8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
          Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
                 arussell@mcguirewoods.com
                 nlagunas@mcguirewoods.com
                 soh@mcguirewoods.com


ANGIE'S LIST: Anderson Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
BELINDA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANGIE'S LIST, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04344-AT (N.D. Ga., Oct. 31, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing to promote its services, harming thousands of other
consumers in the process. Through this action, she seeks injunctive
relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in
the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of
the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also
seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the
class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

Angie's List, Inc. is a professional business directory and review
portal that connects home service providers to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

APOLLONIA LLC: Class Action Suit Over St. Renatus Merger Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION

To: All holders of Apollonia, LLC common units at the time of the
acquisition of Apollonia, LLC by St. Renatus, LLC on April 16,
2019.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota, that the above-captioned action (the
"Action") has been certified by the Court to proceed as a class
action on behalf of the Class.

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants; members of the
immediate family of each individually named Defendant; any person
who was an officer or director of St. Renatus, LLC or Apollonia,
LLC at the time of the merger of those two entities; any firm,
trust, corporation, officer, or other entity in which any Defendant
has or had a controlling interest; any person who participated in
the wrongdoing alleged by Plaintiffs; and the legal
representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, beneficiaries,
successors in interest, or assigns of any such person or entity.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION. A Postcard Notice is currently being mailed to known
members of the Class, and a full printed Notice of Class Action is
available at www.ApolloniaClassAction.com, or by contacting the
Administrator:

Apollonia Class Action
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173099
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(866) 828-2555

If you did not receive the Postcard Notice by mail, and you are a
member of the Class, please send your name and address to the
Administrator so that if any future notices are disseminated in
connection with the Action, you will receive them.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Postcard Notice, may be made
to Class Counsel:

Stephen J. Oddo
George C. Aguilar
Kevin A. Seely
Eric M. Carrino
ROBBINS LLP
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92122
619-525-3990 (office)
soddo@robbinsllp.com
gaguilar@robbinsllp.com
kseely@robbinsllp.com
ecarrino@robbinsllp.com

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time. You keep
the possibility of getting money or benefits that may be awarded at
trial or through a settlement. You will be legally bound by all of
the Orders the Court issues and Judgments the Court makes in this
litigation. However, if you stay in the case, you give up any
rights you may have to sue the Defendants separately concerning any
claims based on the facts and conduct raised by this lawsuit.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be entitled
to any recovery, if any ultimately is awarded. But you, on your own
or through an attorney you hire, may be able to sue the Defendants
concerning the same legal claims that are the subject of this
lawsuit. To exclude yourself, you must complete the Opt-Out Form
and send it to: Apollonia Class Action, EXCLUSIONS, c/o A.B. Data,
Ltd., P.O. Box 173001, Milwaukee, WI 53217. You may also send your
Opt-Out From via email to info@ApolloniaClassAction.com.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the
Administrator.

Please Do Not Call the Court with Questions.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
For the District of Minnesota [GN]

ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Aula Sues Over Concealment of Defects
-----------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Aula, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., TOYODA GOSEI NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
and GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-12738-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich.,
Nov. 11, 2022), is brought concerning a critical safety defect that
endangers the lives of hundreds of thousands of Michigan residents
with regards to the Defendants' defective vehicles.

Specifically, ARC designed and manufactured defective toroidal
stored gas hybrid airbag inflators that can rupture and shoot metal
shrapnel (the "Inflator Defect"), which in turn can kill the driver
and passenger. ARC supplied its Defective Inflators to Toyoda Gosei
North America, Inc., which in turn assembled those inflators into
airbag modules and then supplied those modules to General Motors,
LLC ("GM") which placed those airbags containing the Defective
Inflators into 2010-2017 Chevrolet Equinox models and marketed,
distributed, and sold those vehicles throughout the state (the
"Class Vehicles").

The Class Vehicles are equipped with airbag modules containing
ARC's toroidal stored gas hybrid inflators, all of which suffer
from the Inflator Defect (the "Defective Inflators"). The Inflator
Defect poses a severe risk of harm to Plaintiff and the Class.
Indeed, several of ARC's Defective Inflators have ruptured in the
field and in testing, causing at least two deaths as well as severe
permanent physical injuries.

The Plaintiff and the Class members had no means of knowing about
the Inflator Defect prior to purchasing their Class Vehicles given
that the Defendants had exclusive knowledge of the particular
airbag inflators equipped in the vehicles. The Defendants, in turn,
knew of the Inflator Defect but concealed, rather than disclosed,
its existence.

The safety of the Class Vehicles was a material term of the
transaction. The Inflator Defect renders those vehicles unsafe and,
consequently, would have been a material fact of the transaction to
an ordinary reasonable consumer. The Plaintiff and the Class
members suffered economic injury by purchasing and leasing Class
Vehicles when they would not have done so, or paying more to do so
than they otherwise would have, had the Inflator Defect been
disclosed. And, most critically, they are exposed to the risk of
severe and even fatal injury each time they drive their vehicles,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a 2010 Chevrolet Equinox in Michigan.

ARC Automotive, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its
principal place of business in Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
          645 Griswold, Ste 4300
          Detroit MI 48226
          Phone: (248) 649-5667
          Email: mark@wasvarylaw.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Brant Penney, Esq.
          Roberta Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
          Phone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                 b.penney@rwblawfirm.com
                 r.yard@rwblawfirm.com


ARC AUTOMOTIVE: McCarthy Files Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arc Automotive, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Daniel McCarthy, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arc Automotive, Inc.,
General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC, General Motors
LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-05708-EP-AME (D.N.J., Sept. 26, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle 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:

          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07021
          Phone: (973) 994-1700
          Fax: (973) 994-1744
          Email: ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
                 jcecchi@carellabyrne.com


ARCHAEA ENERGY: Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Archaea Energy Inc. (LFG), relating to its proposed acquisition by
BP plc. Under the terms of the agreement, LFG shareholders are
expected to receive $26.00 in cash per share they own. Click link
for more information:

https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/archaea-energy-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

                 About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341 [GN]

ASSURANCE IQ: Schneider Sues Over Non-Competition Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Schneider, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ASSURANCE IQ, LLC, a Washington limited liability
company doing business as ASSURANCE IQ, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Case
No. 22-2 15633-3 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty., Sept. 27, 2022),
is brought against the Defendant for damages, injunctive relief,
and declaratory relief on behalf of its current and former
employees for violations of Washington's non-competition law.

From January 1, 2020 to the present, the Defendant has required
Class members to sign noncompetition covenants. The noncompetition
covenants prohibit Class members from working for the Defendant's
competitors after termination of their employment. The Plaintiff
and the Class members are aggrieved by the noncompetition
covenants. As a result of the Defendant's actions and omissions,
Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant.

The Defendant is an insurance and loan broker.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
          Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
          EMERY REDDY, PLLC
          600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 442-9106
          Fax: (206) 441-9711
          Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
                 reddyp@emeryreddy.com


ATLAS AIR: Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:


Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: AAWW), relating to its
proposed acquisition by investors led by Apollo Global Management
Inc.  Under the terms of the agreement, AAWW shareholders are
expected to receive $102.50 in cash per share they own. Click link
for more information:

https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/atlas-air-worldwide-holdings-inc.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.


                 About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341 [GN]

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Court Decertifies Classes in Mason's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P.K. Holmes, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division, grants the Defendant's
motion to reconsider the class certification order and decertifies
the class action lawsuit entitled MASON'S AUTOMOTIVE COLLISION
CENTER, LLC, Plaintiff v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02153 (W.D. Ark.).

The Court previously granted in part Mason's motion for class
certification, and the Court certified Arkansas-only classes under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).

Auto-Owners issued a commercial insurance policy to the Plaintiff's
property in Fort Smith. In May 2019, Mason's submitted a claim
under the policy for tornado damage. Auto-Owners issued partial
payment to Mason's, and in that payment applied a coinsurance
penalty.

Under Mason's policy, as well as many Auto-Owners policies, certain
property is not covered, including foundations of buildings,
structures, machinery or boilers if their foundations are below:
(1) the lowest basement floor; or (2) The surface of the ground, if
there is no basement. Mason's argues that Auto-Owners included the
value of the covered property's foundation, which inflated its
value and decreased the amount Auto-Owners paid under the policy.

Mason's sued Auto-Owners individually, alleging breach of contract
and bad faith. It also seeks to pursue these claims, as well as a
declaratory judgment, on behalf of a class. Mason's moved for class
certification. Auto-Owners opposed certification.

In an earlier order, the Court denied certification of a
multi-state class of Auto-Owner's policy holders. The Court did,
however, certify the following Arkansas-only class:

     All Arkansas residents who have or had a commercial property
     damage policy of insurance with Auto-Owners at any time from
     September 24, 2016 to the present, whose foundations were
     excluded from coverage by the terms of the policy, and who
     received a payment for a property damage claim which payment
     was reduced by the Coinsurance provisions of the policy
     pursuant to a property valuation that included the cost of
     foundations.

Following certification, Auto-Owner's moved for summary judgment
and moved the Court to reconsider its certification decision. The
Court held the summary judgment motion in abeyance pending
resolution of this motion.

Auto-Owners also sought permission from the Eighth Circuit to
appeal the order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(f). The
Eighth Circuit denied Auto-Owners permission to appeal.

The Court will decertify both the Rule 23(b)(2) class and the Rule
23(b)(3) class because it finds the issues more nuanced than it
originally considered. The Court has again engaged in the "rigorous
analysis" of the parties' evidence required at the class
certification stage.

The Court finds that class claims are not cohesive, and the Court
will not be able to issue injunctive relief with respect to the
class as a whole. Therefore, the class cannot be certified under
Rule 23(b)(2). Further, the Court finds that individual issues will
predominate over the common question, so the class cannot be
certified under 23(b)(3).

Judge Holmes explains that there is a common question about whether
Auto-Owners "may include the value of an otherwise excluded
foundation when determining the value of Covered Property in
calculating any applicable Coinsurance premium." But that common
question's answer is not uniform because of several underlying
individual questions. These individualized issues would need to be
answered before the Court could fashion a declaratory judgment
regarding Auto-Owners' policy. Therefore, Judge Holmes holds, the
23(b)(2) class cannot be certified because it lacks cohesiveness.

Judge Holmes also concludes that individualized issues predominate
over any common question that the proposed class members share.
Mason's has not offered evidence showing that the Court would not
have to conduct these individualized inquiries. As a result, the
proposed class cannot meet the "far more demanding" 23(b)(3)
predominance requirement.

Therefore, Judge Holmes rules that Auto-Owner's motion to
reconsider is granted. The Court's July 13, 2022 order certifying
Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) classes is vacated and the class
action is decertified.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Nov. 3,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mw883mcn from
Leagle.com.


AVALARA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 6, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Vineet Parekh v. Avalara, Inc. et al, Docket No.
2:22-cv-01580, on behalf of public common shareholders of Avalara,
Inc. ("Avalara" or "AVLR") who held AVLR securities as of the
record date September 8, 2022 (the "Class Period"), and have been
harmed by Avalara's and its board of directors' alleged violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") regarding the acquisition of Avalara by Vista
Equity Partners Management, LLC (the "Acquisition").

Under the terms of the Acquisition, each share of AVLR common stock
was canceled and converted into $93.50 in cash (the "Acquisition
Consideration"). The complaint alleges that the Acquisition
Consideration provided shareholders with less than the fair value
of Avalara and that the Proxy Statement filed by Avalara to solicit
shareholder approval of the Acquisition misled shareholders about
Avalara's financials and the Acquisition in violation of the
Exchange Act. The special meeting of AVLR stockholders to vote on
the transaction was held on October 14, 2022, and the Acquisition
closed on October 19, 2022.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 6, 2023. Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Click here for more information: Investigating Avalara, Inc. |
Monteverde & Associates PC (monteverdelaw.com). It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is
committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We
were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience
litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr.
Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as
a Rising Star and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities
Litigation. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a
2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include
changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard
of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth
Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory
by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently
granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v.
Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, we have recovered or
secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers
& acquisitions class action cases.

Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

AYALA PHARMACEUTICALS: Monteverde Probes Securities Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AYLA), relating to its proposed merger
with Advaxis, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, AYLA
shareholders are expected to own approximately 62.5% of the
combined company. Click link for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/ayala-pharmaceuticals-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

                 About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341 [GN]

BAR VEGAN: Georgia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Georgia, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BAR VEGAN LLC, AARON MATTISON, JASON CRAIN, and AISHA
"PINKY" COLE, Case No. 1:22-cv-04498-JPB (N.D. Ga., Nov. 11, 2022),
is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully violated the
FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages for the hours
the Plaintiff worked and continue to work, failing to pay
appropriate overtime rates, and by retaining the Plaintiff's tips
received from the Defendants' customers. Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants treat or treated the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated as "tipped employees" because these
employees receive tips from the Defendants' customers. The
Defendants claim a "tip credit" against their federal minimum and
overtime wage obligations owed to the Plaintiff under the FLSA in
order to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
less than $7.25 per hour in direct wages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a bartender from March
2020 until October 2022.

Bar Vegan operates as a restaurant and bar of the same name.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Travis Foust, Esq.
          Dustin L. Crawford, Esq.
          PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
          75 14th Street, N.E., 26th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-8000
          Fax: 404-873-8050
          Email: tfoust@pcwlawfirm.com
                 dcrawford@pcwlawfirm.com


BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: Remand of Rojas Suit to Superior Court Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARGARITO RAMIREZ ROJAS, an individual, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. BARNARD CONSTRUCTION, a Montana corporation; BARNARD
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Montana corporation; and Does 1
through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00533-AJB-KSC
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California denies Rojas' motion for
remand.

The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of the Defendant from
November 2020 through November 2021. His duties included
manipulating gravel, dirt, and other materials, and removing
construction and fencing materials. On Oct. 20, 2021, the Plaintiff
filed suit against the Defendant in Imperial County Superior Court,
asserting claims on behalf of himself and the putative class
members of similarly situated non-exempt employees employed by
Defendant in California.

On Jan. 3, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC"). The FAC contains ten causes of action under California
law: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum
wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide
rest periods; (5) failure to pay all wages due upon termination;
(6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (7) failure to pay
timely wages during employment; (8) violation of California Labor
Code section 227.3; (9) unfair competition; and (10) civil
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act for violations of
the California Labor Code.

The Defendant filed an Answer to the FAC on March 7, 2022 and
removed the action to federal court on April 18, 2022, asserting
diversity jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Plaintiff thereafter filed the instant
motion to remand, arguing that the Defendant's removal was
untimely, and that the Defendant failed to establish that the
amount-in-controversy requirement under CAFA is met.

In support of his motion to remand, the Plaintiff argues that
removal was untimely, and that the Defendant has not shown the
amount in controversy required under CAFA is met. The Defendant
argues that removal was timely, and that the Plaintiff's waiting
time penalties alone satisfies CAFA's monetary threshold.

Judge Battaglia finds that the removal was timely, and the
Defendant has satisfied its burden to demonstrate the
amount-in-controversy requirement under CAFA is met. He finds that
as neither thirty-day removal period was triggered in the case, the
Defendant was permitted to remove this case "at any time." He also
finds the Defendant's asserted amount in controversy of
$6,539,872.50 for waiting time penalties proper. Accordingly, he
denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3fecm6ms from Leagle.com.


BAYER CORPORATION: Bullard Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Regina Bullard, individually and on behalf of
all others similiarly situated v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer
Corporation, Elanco Animal Health, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-22904,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Nov. 1, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06014 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

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:

          Rachel Lynn 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


BAYER CORPORATION: Trotter Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rhoda Trotter, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer
Corporation, Elanco Animal Health, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-02183,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Nov. 2, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06012 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

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:

          Rachel 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


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Byrd Sues Over Defective and Toxic Collars
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Byrd, individually and on behalf of all others similiarly
situated v. Bayer Healthcare LLC; Bayer Corporation; and, Elanco
Animal Health, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02445-KHV-ADM (D. Kan., Nov.
2, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for the Defendant's
failure to inform the Plaintiff about the defect inherent in the
Seresto flea and tick collars even though the Defendants knew about
the defect at the time of purchase.

Seresto flea and tick collars--some of the top-selling flea and
tick preventative collars in the country--have been associated with
tens of thousands of pet injuries and approximately 1,700 pet
deaths. The Defendant hid that information from, and patently
misled, consumers. Indeed, even after reports of Seresto's serious
side effects became public, Defendants have downplayed the reports
and continued to represent that Seresto is safe for pets to use
when it is not.

The danger of Seresto flea and tick collars is so severe that it
instigated a Congressional investigation by the House Committee on
Oversight and Reform's Subcomittee on Economic and Consumer Policy.
After an in-depth, 16-month investigation that involved review of
internal documents of the Defendants, which were not been made
available to the public, the House Committee on Oversight and
Reform's Subcomittee on Economic and Consumer Policy issued a
report in June of 2022 ("Seresto Report") recommending a recall of
the Seresto flea and tick collar due to the dangers it posed to
pets and humans.

At no point have the Defendants disclosed this information to
United States consumers. To the contrary, they have maintained and
represented that Seresto collars are safe for pets to use. Despite
the Defendants' claims, Seresto collars have resulted in millions
of dollars in damages for pet owners--both in the form of collars
that they overpaid for or would have never purchased had consumers
known of Seresto's dangers, and also in veterinarian and other
medical expenses incurred by pet owners with pets injured by the
Seresto collar and its pesticides.

The Defendants, of course, have not warned consumers because
Seresto pet collars accounted for more than $300 million in revenue
in 2019 alone. Seresto pet collars are an enormous business
segment, and consequently, the Defendants have refused to make the
product safer or warn consumers about the potential risks. While
the Defendants sell Seresto collars as "veterinary medicine," that
is a misnomer. The over-the-counter collars do not constitute
"medicine" but rather, are toxic pesticides that can harm--and even
kill--pets.

Had Defendants disclosed the existence of the serious safety risks
associated with Seresto Collars and made the Plaintiff aware of
such risks, the Plaintiff either would not have purchased or used
the Seresto Collar, or else would have paid significantly less for
it. Consequently, she did not receive the benefit of her bargain.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff suffered economic harm because she spent
more money on the Seresto Collar than Plaintiff would have had she
known that Seresto fails to perform as represented and poses a
serious risk to animals and humans. Due to Defendants'
misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiff did not receive the
product she intended to purchase--that is, a flea and tick collar
which was fit for its ordinary purpose, the safe administration of
flea and tick prevention to her dogs. Thus, the Plaintiff did not
receive the benefit of her bargain, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased three Seresto Collars and used it on her
dogs.

Bayer Healthcare LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey and initially developed the
Seresto pet collar and manufactured, advertised, labeled, and sold
Seresto from 2013 until August 2020.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: (816) 945-7110
          Fax: (816) 945-7118
          Email: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          3833 Central Ave.
          St. Petersburg, FL 33713
          Phone: (865) 247-0080
          Fax: (865) 522-0049
          Email: rsoffin@milberg.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Phone: (212) 64-0500
          Fax: (212) 253-4272


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses 2nd Amended Truss Class Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit styled BARBARA TRUSS, NATALIA GOLSON, JACK
KILGORE, and GABRIELA PETTIBONE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., a Delaware corporation; BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company; BEIERSDORF, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and BEIERSDORF NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 21 CV 9845 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.).

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and, solely with respect to the
Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, Rule 12(b)(1).

The named Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against the
Defendants, arising out of the Defendants' allegedly deceptive
labeling of Coppertone Water Babies (SPF 50) sunscreen as
hypoallergenic and free of oxybenzone, when in fact it contains
benzophenone. The Plaintiffs assert claims for deceptive practices
under New York General Business Law Section 349 and the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the "deceptive practices claims"),
false advertising under New York General Business Law Section 350
and the California False Advertising Law (the "false advertising
claims"), unfair competition under the California Unfair
Competition Law, and common law claims for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust
enrichment (the "common law claims").

The Defendants manufacture and distribute the Product. Coppertone
has been sold since 1944 and is a well-known sunscreen brand in the
United States and abroad. Today, "thousands of retail locations
throughout the United States" sell the Product.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of California and New York who
allegedly purchased the Product in 2021 and used it on themselves
and their families. They claim the presence of benzophenone renders
the Product mislabeled, misbranded, adulterated, and defective.
They contend the Defendants know the Product contains benzophenone
because of prior litigation, yet fail to include benzophenone in
the Product's ingredients list.

The Plaintiffs further allege the presence of benzophenone renders
defendants' representation and labeling of the Product as
"Hypoallergenic & Gentle" and "free of oxybenzone" false and
misleading. They claim they and the putative class believed, based
on defendants' representations, the Product was hypoallergenic,
gentle, safe for babies' skin, and "free from harmful toxins,
contaminants, undisclosed chemicals, and undisclosed allergens."

The Plaintiffs claim they would not have purchased the Product, or
would have paid significantly less for it, had they been aware it
contained benzophenone. Each Plaintiff alleges they or their
relatives experienced skin ailments including burning, flaking,
itching, and dryness after applying the sunscreen.

Now pending is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the SAC under Rule
12(b)(6) and, solely with respect to the Plaintiffs' request for
injunctive relief, Rule 12(b)(1).

The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs' claims are expressly preempted
by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA").

Judge Briccetti agrees the Plaintiffs' deceptive practices, false
advertising, unfair competition, and common law claims are
preempted to the extent they arise from the Defendants' alleged
failure to disclose the presence of benzophenone in the Product.
All of the Plaintiffs' claims are premised on the allegation that
the Product contains benzophenone that is not disclosed on the
Product's label. Even accepting this allegation as true, as the
Court must at this stage, Judge Briccetti concludes the relevant
provisions of the FDCA and the 2020 Monograph preempt such claims.

The Plaintiffs' deceptive practices, false advertising, unfair
competition, and common law claims are also based on allegations
that the Product falsely indicates it is free of oxybenzone and is
hypoallergenic. The Plaintiffs contend these statements are untrue
because the Product contains benzophenone.

Even if the Plaintiffs' claims were not preempted by the FDCA, the
Defendants argue the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim based on
these statements because the presence of benzophenone is irrelevant
to the Product's free of oxybenzone labeling and the Plaintiffs
fail plausibly to allege benzophenone is an allergen.

Judge Briccetti agrees. Accepting all well-pleaded allegations in
the SAC as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the
Plaintiffs' favor, he concludes they do not plausibly allege the
benzophenone in the Product is an allergen. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' deceptive practices, false advertising, unfair
competition, and common law claims must be dismissed to the extent
they arise from the Product's free of oxybenzone and hypoallergenic
labeling.

In light of the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is granted.

The Clerk is instructed terminate the motion and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3c72uaev from Leagle.com.


BE MONEY: Stipulated Protective Order Entered in Guarnieri Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California enters a Stipulated Protective
Order in the case, MATTHEW GUARNIERI, Plaintiff v. BE MONEY INC.
dba DAYLIGHT, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-CV-01824-FWS-KS (C.D.
Cal.).

Discovery in this class action, brought by a banking customer
against his former deposit account provider, is likely to involve
production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for
which special protection from public disclosure and from use for
any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be
warranted. Disclosure of this confidential and proprietary
material, without the Stipulated Protective Order, will result in
harm to the parties.

The Defendant's policies and procedures related to interacting with
customers and its specific implementation of Regulation E are trade
secrets. Information that the Plaintiff will likely seek to support
class certification in the action will implicate the privacy rights
of Daylight's banking customers.

Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the
prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery
materials, to adequately protect information the parties are
entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are
permitted reasonable 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 serve the ends of justice, a protective
order for such information is justified in the matter.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by the Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected
Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial
judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at
trial.

Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a
Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order
otherwise directs. Final disposition will be deemed to be the later
of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in the Action, with or
without prejudice; and (2) final judgment therein after the
completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands,
trials, or reviews of the Action.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.

Protected Material must be stored and maintained by a Receiving
Party at a location and in a secure manner that ensures that access
is limited to the persons authorized under the Order.

After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy
such material.

Any violation of the Order may be punished by any and all
appropriate measures including, without limitation, contempt
proceedings and/or monetary sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Stipulated Protective
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ytyda535 from
Leagle.com.

John D. Fowler -- jfowler@kfc.law -- Matthew J. Cave --
mcave@kfc.law -- Cristyn N. Chadwick -- cchadwick@kfc.law -- Zien
Halwani -- zhalwani@kfc.law -- KIBLER FOWLER & CAVE LLP, Los
Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant BE MONEY INC. DBA
DAYLIGHT.

G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq. -- tom@mblawapc.com -- Nicholas J.
Bontrager, Esq. -- nick@mblawapc.com -- MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC,
Toluca Lake, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff MATTHEW GUARNIERI.


BECTON AND DICKINSON: Aguila Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Aguila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BECTON AND DICKINSON; APIDEL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV401816 was removed from the
Santa Clara County Superior Court, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern Northern District of California on Oct. 28,
2022, and assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-06670.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts: failure to pay wages including
overtime; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest
periods; failure to pay timely wages; failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify necessary business
expenses; failure to pay reporting time; and violation of Business
and Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq.
          Janna I. Jamil, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: 858-652-3100
          Facsimile: 858-652-3101
          Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
                 marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com
                 janna.jamil@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Christopher Ward, Esq.
          Sara A.L. Abarbanel, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: 858-847-6700
          Facsimile: 858-792-6773
          Email: cward@foley.com
                 sabarbanel@foley.com


BEFORE BRANDS: Faces Harris Suit Over Food Products' Deceptive Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
VASHONDRA HARRIS, DAMANY BROWNE, TIFFANY WEBER, HEATHER C. MACLEAN,
and SONIA FOWLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEFORE BRANDS, INC. d/b/a
SPOONFULONE, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-06577-AGT (N.D. Cal., Oct.
27, 2022) is an action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated consumers who purchased
SpoonfulONE Products, to halt Defendant's dissemination of its
false, misleading, and deceptive advertising; to correct the
misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers; and
to obtain redress for those who have purchased SpoonfulONE
Products.

SpoonfulONE develops, manufactures, advertises, and sells a line of
early allergen introduction food products, whose sole stated
purpose is to promote oral tolerance of common food allergens in
infants by purportedly introducing allergenic proteins into their
diets beginning at 4-6 months of age. On all of its product labels,
SpoonfulONE represents that they are designed to "introduce food
allergens."

According to the complaint, SpoonfulONE's marketing and advertising
for its Puffs, Crunchy Puffs, and Oat Crackers is false, deceptive,
and misleading to reasonable consumers because the SpoonfulONE
Products do not contain the 30mg of allergenic peanut, milk, and
egg protein as advertised, and even if they did, according to
peer-reviewed studies, 30mg is an insufficient amount to introduce
or promote oral tolerance of food allergens, as represented by
SpoonfulONE. Additionally, SpoonfulONE's representations as to its
thorough protein integrity testing of its Products is false,
deceptive, and misleading to reasonable consumers because the
testing method used by SpoonfulONE is incapable of assessing the
effectiveness of its Products in introducing or promoting oral
tolerance of food allergens, says the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aelish Marie Baig, Esq.
          Taeva Shefler, Esq.
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: aelishb@rgrdlaw.com
                  tshefler@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Bradley M. Beall, Esq.
          Alexander H. Cohen, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  bbeall@rgrdlaw.com
                  acohen@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com

BELIV LLC: S.D.N.Y. Narrows Kelly's Claims Over Misleading Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELIV LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-08134 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in part
and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The Defendant moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Rule 12(b)(6), for dismissal of the First Amended Class Action
Complaint ("Complaint") on the grounds that it fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted and that the Plaintiff lacks
standing to bring some of the claims alleged.

Kelly brings the putative class action against Beliv alleging
violations of New York General Business Law ("NYGBL") Sections 349
and 350; violations of the corresponding consumer fraud statutes of
Connecticut and Massachusetts; violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act ("MMWA"); breaches of express warranty and the implied
warranty of merchantability; as well as negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff purchased Nectar Petit, a juice-based beverage
produced and marketed by the Defendant, on one or more occasions
from stores in New York, including Walmart, between 2019 and 2021.
The Product is described on its label as containing "No
Preservatives."

The Product's ingredient list identifies citric acid and ascorbic
acid as two of the Product's ingredients. These ingredients are
identified by the Food and Drug Administration as chemical
preservatives.

The Plaintiff claims that the Product's label is misleading first
because the "No Preservatives" representation is false due to the
presence of ascorbic acid and citric acid, and second because it
designates ascorbic acid and citric acid according to their
non-preservative functions as Vitamin C and an acidulant,
respectively. He alleges that had he or the hypothetical members of
his proposed class "known the truth" that the Product contained
preservatives, they would not have purchased the product, or else
would not have been willing to pay as much for it. Finally, he
claims that the Defendant possessed knowledge of its own
misrepresentations and decided to make them anyway, evincing
fraudulent intent, and that its misrepresentations unjustly
enriched it at the expense of consumers.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of a multi-state class to pursue
this litigation, injunctive relief directing the Defendant to
correct its labeling, restitution and disgorgement of its
wrongfully obtained profits, compensatory and punitive damages, and
costs and expenses including attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint on Oct. 1, 2021,
naming Kasim International Corp. as the sole defendant. On Nov. 24,
2021, he informed the Court that he had sued Kasim International
erroneously and sought permission to amend the complaint,
substituting Beliv as the Defendant. On Nov, 28, 2021, the Court
granted Kelly leave to amend. The Plaintiff filed the operative
Complaint shortly thereafter.

On March 15, 2022, the Defendant filed its motion to dismiss and
supporting documentation. The Plaintiff opposed the motion to
dismiss.

The Defendant moves to dismiss each of the Plaintiff's claims,
specifically (i) the NYGBL Sections 349 and 350 claims; (ii) the
Massachusetts and Connecticut state law claims on behalf of a
putative class of consumers in those states; (iii) the Plaintiff's
breach of warranty claims; and (iv) the Plaintiff's claims for
negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. It also
argues that the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief
because he has not plausibly pleaded a likelihood of specific
future harm and that all of the above claims be dismissed with
prejudice, arguing that no amendments could be made to salvage any
of the Plaintiff's claims.

Judge Liman grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss. He dismisses the Complaint as to the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") class claims as well as the
implied warranty, MMWA, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and
unjust enrichment claims. He also dismisses the prayer for
injunctive relief. However, Judge Liman denies the motion to
dismiss as to the Plaintiff's NYGBL Sections 349 and 350 claims,
the remaining multi-state class claims, as well as the Plaintiff's
express warranty claim.

Among other things, Judge Liman opines that the Plaintiff plausibly
alleges that a reasonable consumer may be misled by the Defendant's
labeling of the Product with the phrase "No Preservatives." He has
also plausibly alleged that -- despite its "No Preservatives"
labeling -- the Product contains two ingredients that the FDA has
identified as having the tendency or power to preserve. It cannot
be said that it would be impossible for the Plaintiff to prove that
a reasonable consumer was likely to be deceived by the Defendant's
labeling of the Product as "No Preservatives."

Judge Liman also opines that because the Plaintiff has stated a
NYGBL claim, the Defendant's request to dismiss the Massachusetts
and Connecticut claims on this basis is unavailing. However, the
Plaintiff's multi-state class action claims brought under CUTPA are
subject to dismissal since CUTPA bars a nonresident of Connecticut
who was injured outside of Connecticut from bringing class action
claims under CUTPA. Therefore, the Plaintiff -- a New York resident
who claims to have purchased the Product at stores within New York
-- lacks "statutory standing" to bring a class action claim under
CUTPA.

Finally, with respect to the Plaintiff's claims for breaches of
express warranty, the Defendant's only rebuttal to the express
warranty claim is that New York courts have dismissed express
warranty claims where they have also dismissed NYGBL claims because
the representations were insufficient as a matter of law to mislead
a reasonable consumer. Judge Liman, however, has not dismissed the
Plaintiff's NYGBL claims, so this argument is unavailing.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 23.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mruuucxa from Leagle.com.


BENEFITFOCUS INC: Monteverde Probes Securities Fraud Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Benefitfocus, Inc. (BNFT), relating to its proposed acquisition by
Voya Financial, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, BNFT
shareholders will receive $10.50 in cash per share they own. Click
link for more information:

https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/benefitfocus-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

                 About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341 [GN]

BEYOND MEAT: Borovoy Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Christine Borovoy, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BEYOND MEAT, INC., Case No.
2022LA000862 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit, County of DuPage, Illinois, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 10,
2022, and assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06302.

The Complaint alleges that Beyond Meat's product labels and related
marketing claims for certain products (the "Products") are false
and misleading, because Beyond Meat purportedly miscalculates and
overstates the Products' protein content, miscalculates and
overstates the quality of the protein found in the Products and
misleads customers into believing that the Products provide
equivalent nutritional benefits to that found in traditional
meat-based products.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark S. Mester, Esq.
          Robin M. Hulshizer, Esq.
          Renatta A. Gorski, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: (312) 876-7700
          Facsimile: (312) 993-9767
          Email: mark.mester@lw.com
                 robin.hulshizer@lw.com
                 renatta.gorski@lw.com


BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: Criste Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY ERIC DE GUZMAN CRISTE, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIO-MEDICAL
APPLICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Delaware corporation; and DOES
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 220V4O5681 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., Oct. 31, 2022) challenges systemic
illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the
California Labor Code against individuals, including Plaintiff, who
worked for the Defendant.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, jointly and severally,
have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to
pay sick pay at the regular rate of pay and failing to provide
accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as registered nurse
from June 2012 to June 8, 2022.

Bio-Medical Applications of California, Inc. was founded in 2009.
The company's line of business includes providing kidney or renal
dialysis services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  kagnew@diversitylaw.com
                  nrosenthal@divesitylaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@po1arislawgroup.com

BIRD GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 17, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Bird Global, Inc. (NYSE: BRDS) between May 14, 2021
and November 14, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Bird's investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Bird class action, go
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9805 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Bird was improperly recording Sharing Revenue
for certain trips by its customers where collection was not
probable; (2) as such, Bird overstated its Sharing Revenue for the
relevant quarters and fiscal year during the Class Period; (3) Bird
failed to disclose that its internal controls were not effective as
they relate to calculating Sharing Revenue recognition; (4) as a
result, Bird would need to restate its previously disclosed Sharing
Revenue; and (5) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
17, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9805 or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

BLOCK INC: Gordon Sues to Redress Negligence Over Sensitive PII
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Gordon, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. BLOCK, INC. and CASH APP INVESTING, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-06787-SK (N.D. Cal., Nov. 2, 2022), is brought under state
common law and consumer-protection statutes, to redress Defendants'
negligence on extremely sensitive Personal Identifying Information
("PII") for each of Cash App users.

Cash App, owned by Block, is a mobile application that allows users
to transfer money from one person to another, while using the Cash
App mobile application on their smartphone. Cash App acquires and
maintains extremely sensitive PII for each of its users. The
security of the Defendants' customers' inherently valuable PII is
exceedingly important. The Defendants are responsible for
designing, developing, and maintaining the App's security measures,
safely securing each user's PII, and actively monitoring
third-party infiltration. Due to the Defendants' negligent security
features, protocol, systems, screening, and design, however, the
Defendants failed to properly secure and protect App users' PII.
The Defendants' negligence has resulted in the exploitation and
release of Cash App users' PII.

The Defendants have known and/or should have known that its
security measures, protocols, screening procedures, and systems
were deficient in terms of how it fails to protect users' PII. This
negligence and lack of action and due care by Defendants can be
seen in postings about problems with the app and recently
culminated in a recent data breach of the app.

The Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard
consumer information in connection with a December 2021 data breach
(the "Data Breach") that resulted in the unauthorized public
release of PII of 8.2 million current and former Cash App Investing
customers, including the Plaintiff's and Proposed "Class" members'
full names and brokerage account numbers (which are the personal
identification numbers associated with Cash App customers' stock
activity on the Cash App investing platform), the value and
holdings of brokerage portfolios, and trading activity.

Because of the Defendants' negligence, the Plaintiff and Class
Members' PII has been compromised and their financial accounts, as
well as accounts unrelated to Cash App, are not secure. By and
through the Defendants' negligence, they have caused financial
losses and negative consequences and their negligence will continue
to harm Class Members' into the future. Most importantly to the
millions of Cash App users whose PII is in the hands of
unauthorized third parties, due to Defendants negligence Class
Members have either experienced damages and harm or it is likely
that they will due to the Defendants negligence, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff became a Cash App Investing user in July 2021.

Block, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San
Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          Emrah M. Sumer, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Phone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          Email: gnecf@classcounsel.com


BLUE CROSS: Class in C.P. Certified; Exclusion of Carr Report Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, C. P., by and through his parents, Patricia Pritchard
and Nolle Pritchard; and PATRICIA PRITCHARD, Plaintiff v. BLUE
CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-06145-RJB (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma:

   a. grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and

   b. denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Expert Report
      of Scott Carr, Ph.D., without prejudice.

In this case, C.P., a transgender male, and his mother, Pritchard,
claim that Blue Cross violated the anti-discrimination provision,
Section 1557, of the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), 42 U.S.C. Section
18116, when it administered a discriminatory exclusion of
gender-affirming care in a self-funded health care plan governed by
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

C.P. is a transgender male, which means that he has a male gender
identity even though the sex assigned to him at birth was female.
C.P. has been living as a male since around 2015. Pritchard
receives health care coverage through her employer under the
Catholic Health Initiatives Medical Plan and C.P. is enrolled in
that Plan as her dependent. The Plan is "self-funded" Pritchard's
employer directly assumes financial responsibility for employees
and their dependents' health care costs. B

Blue Cross, acts as the third-party claims administrator for the
Plan. As a third-party administrator, it "assembles a network of
providers, processes claims, and handles provider billing."

C.P. has gender dysphoria. The American Psychiatric Association's
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth
Edition ("DSM-5") recognizes gender dysphoria as a medical
condition that can be extremely serious, resulting in anxiety,
depression, or even death.

C.P. sought coverage for his first Vantas Implant (hormone therapy)
in 2016. Blue Cross initially approved the treatment and later
informed his mother that it had made a mistake; that the treatment
was not covered. Blue Cross paid for the treatment however, but
indicated that later claims would be denied. A few years later C.P.
filed a claim for a second Vantas Implant and for chest
reconstruction surgery; his claim was denied by Blue Cross because
transgender services were not covered under the terms of the plan.

The relevant Plan language in 2018 provided: "Transgender
Reassignment Surgery Not Covered: Benefits will not be provided for
treatment, drugs, therapy, counseling services and supplies for, or
leading to, gender reassignment surgery" ("Exclusion"). Of the
approximately 398 of the self-funded plans that Blue Cross
administers as a third-party administrator, 378, that is, 95%
contain the same Exclusion that is in the Plan in which C.P. is
enrolled.

The Plaintiffs contend that Blue Cross, as a third-party
administrator, has denied or will deny other enrollees in other
self-funded plans gender affirming care by relying on exclusions
like the one applied to C.P. Blue Cross acknowledges that there are
hundreds of members (in approximately half the self-funded plans it
administers) who have received a denial based on such an exclusion.
It denies that its activities as a third-party administrator are
subject to the anti-discrimination provisions in Section 1557 of
the ACA.

The matter comes before the Court on the C.P.'s Motion for Class
Certification and Motion to Strike the Expert Report of Scott Carr,
Ph.D.

C.P. moves for certification of the following class: All
individuals who: (1) have been, are, or will be participants or
beneficiaries in an ERISA self-funded group health plan (as defined
in 29 U.S.C. Section 1167(1)) administered by Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Illinois (BCBSIL) during the Class Period and that
contains a categorical exclusion of some or all Gender-Affirming
Health Care services; and (2) have required, require, or will
require treatment with excluded Gender-Affirming Health Care
services.

Blue Cross argues that this definition of the class is broader than
that in the Amended Complaint and so should be stricken and that
the class claims are limited by the applicable statute of
limitations to events after Nov. 2, 2018. It also complains the
statute of limitations bars claims before Nov. 2, 2018 rather than
Nov. 23, 2016, which is included in the proposed class definition.
It also asserts that the class claims (filed in the Amended
Complaint on Nov. 2, 2021) should not be permitted to relate back
to the filing of the initial complaint (which was filed on Nov. 23,
2020) and so the statute of limitation period should be based on
the filing of the Amended Complaint.

Judge Bryan finds that the Amended Complaint here relates back to
the date of the original Complaint. The Plaintiffs' claim in the
original complaint and the class claims added in the Amended
Complaint will likely be proved by the same kind of evidence.
Accordingly, Nov. 23, 2020, the date the Complaint was filed, began
the time to calculate the four-year statute of limitations period.
The "Class Period" being defined as "Nov. 23, 2016 through the
termination of the litigation" was not in error.

Judge Bryan now turns to whether the class, as newly defined,
should be certified. He finds that the class satisfies Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a)'s four prerequisites: numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. In
addition to meeting the requirements of Rule 23(a), he also finds
that C.P. has shown that certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and
(B) is warranted. Hence, the class, as defined, should be
certified. C.P. has demonstrated that the requirements of Rule 23
are met.

Finally, Judge Bryan finds that the Plaintiffs' motion to strike
the Carr report should be denied without prejudice. He says neither
the parties nor the Court relied on the Carr report for any reason.
The grounds raised to strike the report, that it was not timely
disclosed, is not relevant to this motion and need not be raised in
a reply.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Bryan grants C.P.'s Motion for
Class Certification.

The Class is certified as:

      All individuals who: (1) have been, are, or will be
participants or beneficiaries in an ERISA self-funded group health
plan (as defined in 29 U.S.C. Section 1167(1)) administered by Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Illinois (BCBSIL) during the Class Period and
that contains a categorical exclusion of some or all
Gender-Affirming Health Care services; and (2) were, are, or will
be denied pre-authorization or coverage of treatment with excluded
Gender Affirming Health Care services

      DEFINITIONS:

            Class Period means Nov. 23, 2016 through the
termination of the litigation.

            Gender-Affirming Health Care means any health care
service -- physical, mental, or otherwise -- administered or
prescribed for the treatment of gender dysphoria; related diagnoses
such as gender identity disorder, gender incongruence, or
transsexualism; or gender transition.

            This includes but is not limited to the administration
of puberty delaying medication (such as gonadotropin-releasing
hormone (GnRH) analogues); exogenous endocrine agents to induce
feminizing or masculinizing changes (hormone replacement therapy);
gender-affirming or sex-reassignment surgery or procedures; and
other medical services or preventative medical care provided to
treat gender dysphoria and/or related diagnoses, as outlined in
World Professional Association for Transgender Health, Standards of
Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender
Nonconforming People, 7th Version (2012).

C.P., by and through his parents, is appointed as the class
representative, and Eleanor Hamburger and Daniel Gross of Sirianni
Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger, as well as Jennifer Pizer and Omar
Gonzalez-Pagan of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, are
appointed as the class counsel.

Judge Bryan denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Expert
Report of Scott Carr without prejudice.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of the Order to
all the counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said
party's last known address.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr2yprw9 from Leagle.com.


BMO TRUST: Settles Undisclosed Fees' Class Action for $100-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Maluske, writing for CTV Windsor News, reports that The
Class Action Clinic has been given $3 million that went unclaimed
by a recent settlement.

"I was ecstatic and relieved," Jasminka Kalajdzic told CTV News
Windsor. "Both because like so many legal clinics in the province
and across the country, funding is always our number one concern."

Kalajdzic is a law professor and director of the Class Action
Clinic, which she says is the only one of its kind in all of North
America.

"We help people from beginning of the class action to the end of
it. And so far, we've had some really good success. We've helped
class members recover over a million dollars," says Kalajdzic.

In this case, Kalajdzic says BMO Trust agreed to a $100 million
settlement over undisclosed fees on foreign transactions.

$94 million of it was given to members of the class, leaving $6
million unclaimed.

"Rather than give the money back to the defendant, they [the court]
distribute that leftover fund to a non-profit or to a charity to do
something with it that will be at least of indirect benefit to the
class," says Kalajdzic.

Because the Class Action Clinic is the only one of its kind, the
plaintiff petitioned the court to give it half of the money, and
the other $3 million went to the United Way.

"Bad for some of the class members, but we'll get to use this money
now for the foreseeable future to help as many class members as
possible make sure that they don't miss out on these compensation
claims," notes Kalajdzic.

The Class Action Clinic has a full-time lawyer who oversees all the
work of law students, who earn academic credits for volunteering
their time.

And in the summer, the clinic hires student lawyers to work
full-time on the cases before the courts.

"This [award] puts us in a really good position," says Kalajdzic.
[GN]

BP EXPLORATION: Prest's Claims Dismissed; Ross Opinions Struck
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIRK PREST v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., et
al., SECTION M (4), Civil Action No. 17-3409 (E.D. La.), Judge
Barry W. Ashe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana grants:

   (i) the motion to strike and exclude the medical causation
       opinions of the Plaintiff's treating ophthalmologist,
       Dr. Robert Ross; and

  (ii) the motion for summary judgment, filed by Defendants BP
       Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Co.
       and BP p.l.c.

The case is one of the "B3 cases" arising out of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill that occurred on April 20, 2010. The B3
plaintiffs all make "claims for personal injury and wrongful death
due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil
spill response (e.g. dispersant)."

These cases were originally part of a multidistrict litigation
("MDL") pending in another section of this court before Judge Carl
J. Barbier. When Judge Barbier approved the Deepwater Horizon
medical benefits class action settlement agreement, the B3
plaintiffs either opted out of the settlement or were excluded from
the class definition. Judge Barbier then severed the B3 cases from
the MDL, and those cases were reallotted among the judges of this
Court.

Prest alleges that, on April 30, 2010, he joined the "vessels of
opportunity" program by entering into a master vessel charter
agreement with BP America for the use of his 24-foot vessel in
oil-spill cleanup work. Between May 16 and Nov. 26, 2010, he
performed oil-spill cleanup work consisting mostly of wildlife
rescue operations near Venice, Grand Isle, and Port Fourchon.

Prest alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and dispersants
while engaged in the cleanup efforts and had adverse health
conditions or symptoms including, but not limited to, "blinding"
eye injury, skin injuries, respiratory issues, neurological
damages, and stress.13 He also claims Central Serous Retinopathy
and other eye complications; hypertension and related
cardiovascular issues; anxiety and depression; skin, nasal, and
respiratory issues; and other neurological injuries causing
migraines, insomnia, and memory loss.14 Prest opted out of the
medical benefits class action settlement agreement. In this action,
he asserts claims for negligence with respect to the oil spill and
cleanup.

In the case management order for the B3 bundle of cases, Judge
Barbier noted that, to prevail, "B3 plaintiffs must prove that the
legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or
other chemicals used during the response." He further observed that
causation "will likely be the make-or-break issue for many B3
cases," and "the issue of causation in these toxic tort cases will
require an individualized inquiry."

Prest, like all other B3 plaintiffs to have appeared before this
Court, relied on Dr. Jerald Cook to provide expert testimony as to
general causation, i.e., that exposure to oil and dispersants was
capable of causing in the general population the kind of health
issues he alleges. For most B3 cases, Cook issued an omnibus,
non-case-specific general causation expert report that has been
used by many B3 plaintiffs and has evolved over time.

Prest produced in discovery, and relied upon, Cook's Sept. 30, 2022
report, which includes some information specific to Prest. However,
in granting the Defendants' motion to exclude Cook's report in this
case, the Court concluded that Cook's September 30 report did not
cure the previously identified deficiencies in his prior reports;
specifically, the September 30 report did not provide admissible
opinions concerning general causation

Cook, however, is not Prest's only purported causation expert.
Prest's Rule 26(a)(2)(C) expert disclosures indicate that his
treating ophthalmologist, Ross, will testify about Prest's
treatment and also render expert opinions regarding the potential
causes of CSR, including "type A personality," stress, and exposure
to weathered crude oil and dispersants.

The Defendants now move to strike Ross, arguing that the disclosure
is insufficient given his causation opinions. They also move for
summary judgment, arguing that once Ross' causation opinions are
stricken, Prest has no admissible expert opinions concerning
general causation.

Judge Ashe holds that Ross' general causation opinions must be
excluded because they were not properly disclosed under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and are unreliable under
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. He finds that the failure
to provide a proper Rule 26(a)(2)(B) expert report -- or, for that
matter, a proper Rule 26(a)(2)(C) expert report -- is sufficient to
exclude Ross' general causation opinions. Even if Prest had
complied with the disclosure requirements, however, Ross' general
causation opinions for his exposure claims would be excluded
because they do not comply with Rule 702 and Daubert.

The Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment
because Prest lacks general causation expert testimony. The Court
previously excluded Cook and has now excluded Ross as a general
causation expert. Thus, all of Prest's claims arising from direct
chemical exposure must be dismissed with prejudice.

The Fifth Circuit explained further that federal appellate courts
addressing the zone-of-danger test in maritime cases hold that "a
plaintiff was objectively within the zone of danger if he (1) was
at the same location where people got injured by the alleged
negligent conduct; (2) could not leave the dangerous area; or (3)
experienced a near-miss collision." Because Prest does not plead
any of these scenarios, he was not in any zone of danger and may
not recover for emotional injuries under the prevailing law.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motion to
strike Ross is granted and their motion for summary judgment are
granted. Prest's claims against them are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s5dzasv from Leagle.com.


BPS DIRECT: Wiretaps Basspro.Com Website Visitors, Tucker Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARLIE TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BPS DIRECT, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-03285-SRB (W.D. Mo.,
Nov. 7, 2022) is a class action brought against BPS for
surreptitiously intercepting, disclosing, and/or using and
otherwise wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to
its website, www.basspro.com.

Accordingly, the Defendant procures third-party vendors, such as
Microsoft Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer
code (Session Replay Code) on the Defendant's website, which then
deploys on each website visitor's internet browser for the purpose
of intercepting and recording the website visitor's electronic
communications with the BPS website, including their mouse
movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into an
information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or
other electronic communications in real-time (Website
Communications). These third-party vendors (collectively, "Session
Replay Providers") create and deploy the Session Replay Code at
Defendant's request, says the suit.

After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications, the
Defendant and the Session Replay Providers use those Website
Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to
www.basspro.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video replay
of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to Defendant
for analysis. Defendant's directive to the Session Replay Providers
to secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results in the
electronic equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each
visitor to the Defendant's website for the entire duration of their
website interaction, the suit asserts.

The Defendant's conduct constitutes violations of the Missouri
Wiretap Act, the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act ("CFAA"); and constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights of
website visitors and a trespass to chattels. The Defendant
allegedly intercepted Plaintiff's and the Class members' electronic
communications from the moment they landed on Defendant's website,
and before they had an opportunity to even consider consenting or
agreeing to any privacy or terms of use policy on the website. The
Defendant's unlawful watching and interception occurred before
Plaintiff and the Class members were given an opportunity to
review, let alone consent, to any language that Defendant may claim
purportedly authorized its violations of the Missouri Wiretapping
Act, the suit further allegges.

BPS Direct is an American privately held retailer of hunting,
fishing, camping and related outdoor recreation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq.
          CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
          308 Hutchinson Road
          Ellisville, MO 63011-2029
          Telephone: (314) 541-0317
          E-mail: tiffany@consumerprotectionelegal.com

                - and –

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq,
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
          E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                  pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

                - and –

          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Maureen Kane Berg, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
                  khriebel@locklaw.com
                  mkberg@locklaw.com

BRAZYN LIFE: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brazyn Life, LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Zarzuela, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Brazyn Life, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09675 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2022).

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

Brazyn Life -- https://brazynlife.com/ -- offers gear for the
modern dream chaser next level fitness equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


BROOKS LIMO TRANSPORTATION: Silva Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooks Limo
Transportation Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mario Silva,
individually and on Behalf of All others similarly situated v.
Brooks Limo Transportation Inc., Jonathan Kanyike, Joan Namugenyi,
Case No. 2281CV03468 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Sept. 26,
2022).

The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."

Brooks Limo Transportation -- https://brookslimousine.com/ -- are a
locally owned company dedicated to providing a quality limousine
experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jeremy Shafran, Esq.
          RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
          92 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109

BWC HARVEY: Court Narrows Terrell's Claims Over Noxious Odors
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIMBERLY TERRELL, et al. v. BWC HARVEY, LLC f/k/a
BLACKWATER HARVEY, LLC, SECTION M (5), Civil Action No. 22-2323
(E.D. La.), Judge Barry W. Ashe of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana grants in part and denies in part
BWC's motion to dismiss.

The environmental tort litigation arises from the operation of a
hazardous liquid storage and transportation facility owned by BWC
and located in Harvey, Louisiana. The Plaintiffs allege, in their
individual capacity and on behalf of a putative class, that the
facility emits excessive noxious odors that have invaded their
properties and the properties of the putative class situated within
1.75 miles of the facility's property boundary. These odors, they
contend, are the result of BWC's failure to adequately control
fugitive emissions from the facility, which has precluded them from
the full use and enjoyment of their properties.

On June 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a class action petition for
damages in Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, State of
Louisiana, seeking monetary and injunctive relief from BWC under
negligence and nuisance theories. BWC removed the case, invoking
the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction under the diversity and
Class Action Fairness Act provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.
Thereafter, it filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In its motion to dismiss, BWC argues that the Plaintiffs failed to
adequately plead plausible claims for negligence and nuisance
resulting from the alleged invasion of noxious odors into their
properties from BWC's facility. Specifically, it contends that the
Plaintiffs' negligence claim fails because they do not adequately
plead a specific standard of care as required by the Fifth Circuit
in Butler v. Denka Performance Elastomer, LLC, 16 F.4th 427 (5th
Cir. 2021). Moreover, it argues that the allegations fail to
satisfy the damages element of a negligence claim.

In reply to the Plaintiffs' opposition, BWC maintains its position
that they have failed to allege the duty and damages elements of
their negligence claim and, additionally, argues that they have not
adequately pleaded causation. As for nuisance, it argues that the
Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the causation, damages,
negligence, and neighbor elements necessary for such a claim.
Finally, it asserts that any damages incurred by the Plaintiffs
more than a year prior to the filing of the suit are time-barred as
their allegations do not demonstrate the applicability of the
continuing tort doctrine.

In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that they have adequately
pleaded claims for negligence and nuisance. They argue, in regards
to the negligence claim, that they have satisfied the specific
standard of care element by alleging a jurisprudential duty and by
alleging that BWC operated the facility in violation of Louisiana
law and operating permits. They further state that the causation
and damages elements have been satisfied, as their petition for
damages alleges that BWC's failure to "properly repair, maintain,
and operate the Facility caused noxious odors to invade the
properties of the Plaintiffs and Class," and those odors have
prevented the full use, and diminished the value, of their
properties.

As for their nuisance claim, the Plaintiffs contend that they have
adequately pleaded (1) the standard of care for such a claim, (2)
causation, (3) damages, and (4) that their properties and the BWC
facility are neighbors. Finally, they reject the view that their
petition fails to invoke the continuing tort doctrine so as to
interrupt the running of prescription, because they have alleged
that their "'properties have been, and continue to be, invaded by
fugitive noxious odors emitted from the Facility.'"

Judge Ashe grants BWC's motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiffs'
negligence claim, but gives the Plaintiffs an opportunity to file
an amended complaint to cure the noted pleading deficiencies. He
finds that the Plaintiffs do not accompany any of these allegations
with citation to a particular statute, regulatory provision,
requirement imposed by BWC's operating permits, or other relevant
legal authority establishing a specific duty to control emissions.
Their bare assertion that BWC violated state operating permits does
not adequately allege the specific duty element. They also fail in
their petition for damages to adequately allege a "specific
standard of care on which to base a legally cognizable duty.

With respect to the Plaintiffs' claims for nuisance, Judge Ashe
holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged the reasonable
care (negligence), causation, damage, and neighbor elements of a
nuisance claim.

As for the Plaintiffs' injunctive relief in conjunction with their
negligence and nuisance claims, Judge Ashe finds that the
Plaintiffs have failed to allege the facts necessary to support
injunctive relief, but they will be given the opportunity to file
an amended complaint to cure the noted pleading deficiencies. He
says the petition fails to articulate what the obligations and
duties are. The petition does, however, adequately plead the
benefit the general public would receive should an injunction abate
the facility's emissions.

Judge Ashe dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages
and attorney's fees with prejudice. He finds that the Plaintiffs do
not address BWC's arguments and, instead, voluntarily "withdraw
their claims for punitive damages and attorney's fees."

Finally, Judge Ashe holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately
alleged facts to demonstrate the applicability of the continuing
tort doctrine. The Plaintiffs have alleged that the invasion of the
noxious odors allegedly emitted by BWC's facility are ongoing.

Accordingly, for the reasons he stated, Judge Ashe grants in part
and denies in part BWC's motion to dismiss. The motion is granted
as to the Plaintiffs' negligence, punitive damages, and attorney's
fees claims, as well as the request for injunctive relief. The
motion is denied as to their nuisance claim, at this pleading stage
of the case.

Judge Ashe dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages
and attorney's fees are with prejudice and their claims for
negligence and injunctive relief without prejudice. The Plaintiffs
have 15 days from the date of the Order & Reasons to file an
amended complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies noted
concerning their claims for negligence and injunctive relief.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/44e6zf6k from Leagle.com.


CAKE 5332: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosangelica Alvarez and Shahram Shahandeh, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. CAKE 5332, LLC, and ABDUL
HAMIDEH, Case No. 4:22-cv-00697-HFS (W.D. Mo., Oct. 28, 2022), is
brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation, and related penalties and damages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants' policy and practice is to deny minimum wages and
overtime pay to servers working at its restaurants. Defendants'
failure to pay employees their earned wages and overtime
compensation violates the FLSA. Further, the Defendants maintain an
unlawful tip pool scheme, whereby managers and supervisors
participate in the tip pool along with tipped employees such as
servers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed as servers for Defendants in
Missouri.

Cake 5332, LLC., is a Limited Liability Company, organized under
the laws of Missouri, with principal places of business located in
the State of Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Barry R. Grissom, Esq.
          GRISSOM & MILLER LAW FIRM, LLC
          1600 Genessee Street, Suite 460
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Phone: 816-336-1213
          Fax: 816-384-1623
          Email: barry@grissommiller.com

CALIFORNIA: Bid to Certify Class in DB v. CDPH, DHHS, et al. Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, D.B. as conservator for JOHN DOE 1; C.C. as guardian
for JANE DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; and JANE DOE 2 on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHIQUITA
BROOKS-LASURE, in her official capacity as Administrator for the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC HEALTH; TOMAS ARAGON in his official capacity as Director
of the California Department of Public Health; XAVIER BECERRA in
his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services; and DOES 1 through 30, Defendants, Case No. C
22-04501 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denies the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class members are patients and
residents of Laguna Honda Hospital, a skilled nursing facility in
San Francisco. The City and County of San Francisco owns the
facility and operates it through the San Francisco Department of
Public Health (SFDPH). Specifically, the following persons are
responsible for ensuring that the facility provides quality care
and complies with the law: the Director of the San Francisco Health
Network, Roland Pickens, who reports to the Director of Health of
SFDPH, Grant Colfax, who reports to the President of the San
Francisco Health Commission, Dan Bernal, who reports to both the
Mayor of San Francisco and the President of the San Francisco Board
of Supervisors.

To receive reimbursements from the federal government and
California, Laguna Honda executed "provider agreements" with the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and California
Department of Public Health (CDPH). The agreements required that
Laguna Honda maintains "substantial compliance" with health and
safety requirements under the Medicare and Medicaid acts to receive
funding." The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) is an entity within DHHS that enforces the conditions of
participation by conducting periodic surveys (i.e., inspections) of
providers' facilities. When a provider fails to substantially
comply with the participation requirements, CMS may terminate the
provider's Medicare and Medicaid agreements, impose alternative
remedies, or do both.

The Secretary has repeatedly found Laguna Honda to be a substandard
provider, so he finally decertified Laguna Honda. Despite the
promise of the correction plans, Laguna Honda failed to remedy the
violations. Pursuant to the notice, on April 13, 2022, CDPH
conducted a final survey. It recorded many violations. On April 14,
2022, CMS terminated Laguna Honda's provider agreements and imposed
roughly $400,000 in fines. The City and County has appealed CMS's
decertification decision to an administrative law judge and has
requested expedited hearings. The appeal remains pending.

The federal termination notice gave Laguna Honda an option to
continue to receive post-termination funding beyond the 30-day
cutoff. Accordingly, on May 9, 2022, Laguna Honda submitted to CMS
a notification of closure and relocation. Laguna Honda proposed an
18-month relocation plan. CMS and CDPH rejected the plan and
specified a four-month relocation plan as acceptable if Laguna
Honda wished to receive post-termination benefits. Laguna Honda
submitted such a four-month plan and gained approval for funding to
continue until Sept. 13, 2022, the deadline to relocate all
patients to other, compliant facilities.

Thus far, Laguna Honda has relocated only 57 residents (of over
600). Nine patients died after relocation. Thereafter, CMS agreed
to pause patient relocations. Later, in August 2022, CMS, CDPH, and
the City and County issued a joint statement announcing a further
relocation pause with funding to continue to Laguna Honda through
Nov. 13, 2022. These deadlines were later extended again.

There are no facts in the record regarding the cause or
circumstances of any patient's death. CDPH's investigation of the
incidents is ongoing. However, the Plaintiffs and amicus curiae
have submitted declarations of doctors, emphasizing the lack of
comparable facilities in the Bay Area to which patients at Laguna
Honda can be transferred. The declarations provide that, if the
relocation deadline stands, patients would not have sufficient time
to find alternative facilities. Or, there may not be enough
alternative facilities at all. They also highlight that patients
may suffer adverse physiological reactions to sudden changes in
environment - known as "transfer trauma." Other courts have
recognized the adverse health effects of transfer trauma.

Pursuant to a prior order, the parties provided a joint statement
regarding the number of available Medicare and Medicaid beds at
skilled nursing facilities in San Francisco and in neighboring
cities. There are approximately 288 beds available in San
Francisco. There are over 4,000 beds available in neighboring
cities. The following cities are amongst the nearest to San
Francisco and have approximately 1,105 beds available in total:
Oakland; Alameda; Daly City; Pacifica; San Mateo; San Leandro; San
Rafael; and Walnut Creek.

On the eve of the hearing on Oct. 13, 2022, the parties submitted a
joint stipulation, providing that the City and County had reached a
settlement-in-principle with CMS and CDPH. If approved by the Mayor
and the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, the agreement would
extend the pause in relocations until Feb. 2, 2023, with a
possibility for further extension if Laguna Honda makes certain
health and safety improvements by that time. It would also extend
Medicare and Medicaid funding until Nov. 13, 2023, contingent on
health and safety improvements.

Perhaps oddly, the patient Plaintiffs are not suing Laguna Honda,
the SFDPH, or anyone else responsible for the decline in health
care at Laguna Honda. Instead, they are suing federal personnel who
have cut off funding (or threaten to) by reason of the
mismanagement of Laguna Honda. Specifically, four patients of
Laguna Honda have sued Xavier Becerra (in his official capacity as
Secretary of DHHS) and Chiquita Brooks-Lasure (in her official
capacity as Administrator for CMS) (together, "Federal
Defendants"). They have also sued Tomas Aragon (in his official
capacity as Director of CDPH) and CDPH (together, "State
Defendants").

The Plaintiffs claim that both the termination of the facility's
Medicare and Medicaid funding and their relocation to other
facilities violate federal and state law. They eventually wish to
enjoin the Defendants from terminating the facility's funding and
relocating them.

The Plaintiffs bring claims for violation of the Rehabilitation Act
(against all the Defendants), violation of due process (against all
the Defendants except State Defendant CDPH), violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act (against only the Federal Defendants),
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (against only the
State Defendants), and mandamus (against only State Defendant
Aragon).

The Plaintiffs now seek class certification of a FRCP 23(b)(2)
class.

The Defendants argue that the district court does not have
subject-matter jurisdiction over any claims against them, barring
class certification (and, for that matter, entry of any preliminary
injunction).

Judge Alsup finds that the action is premature, and the district
court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, he explains,
a district court cannot entertain claims "arising under" the
Medicare Act against officers of the DHHS unless the plaintiff has
exhausted administrative remedies.

The Plaintiffs must "present" their claims to the Secretary and
"exhaust" administrative remedies within DHHS before seeking
judicial review. Although presentment is satisfied in the case,
exhaustion is not satisfied because the City and County's appeal is
still pending. The district court may waive the exhaustion
requirement. But waiver is inappropriate because all the claims to
be reviewed are "essentially claims for benefits" -- not
"collateral" claims.

Nor does the "Michigan Academy exception" save the Plaintiffs'
claims. First, each patient has the right to review with CDPH a
decision to relocate him or her.  Second, the City and County can
administratively appeal (and has appealed) the termination of
benefits effectively on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and a successful
appeal would cancel the closure and relocation process. Third,
despite federal regulations that suggest otherwise, the City and
County can seek judicial review of the relocation plan effectively
on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Fourth, the Plaintiffs themselves may
seek judicial review of the relocation plan on their own after the
City and County exhausts administrative remedies because they would
be "aggrieved" parties for purposes of statutes that require safe
transfer of patients.

Because the district court does not have subject-matter
jurisdiction over any claims, Judge Alup holds that class
certification must be denied. And, even if the district court had
subject-matter jurisdiction, he says there would be a further
problem with class certification, namely, an inherent conflict of
interest within the proposed class. Some patients can be expected
to prefer transfer to another facility rather than to remain at
Laguna Honda, given its history of health and safety violations.
Thus, a FRCP 23(b)(2) class could not be certified because
enjoining the closure and relocation process would not be
appropriate for every patient.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alsup denies the motion for class
certification. For the same reasons, he dismisses the civil action
and its companion action (City and County of San Francisco v.
United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., No.
C 22-04500 WHA) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This will
serve the beneficial role of allowing the Plaintiffs to appeal and
perhaps win a ruling prior to the resumption of relocations in
February.

In both cases, the Plaintiffs have 14 calendar days to show cause
why the case and its companion case should not be dismissed,
failing which judgment will be entered (to facilitate an appeal).

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc596aw3 from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: Court Allows Lake to Amend Prisoner Complaint v. CDCR
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOHN LAKE, Plaintiff v. RALPH DIAZ, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-0395 AC P (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Allison Claire of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and he will be given an opportunity to amend the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP).
This action proceeds against Ralph Diaz, Secretary of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR");
Patrick Cevello, MCSP Warden; and John Does 1-10.

The Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiff has
requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915. This proceeding was referred to this Court by Local
Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1).

Judge Claire finds that the Plaintiff has submitted a declaration
that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a).
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

The Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350
for this action. By this order, the Plaintiff will be assessed an
initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the Court will direct
the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee
from the Plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of
the Court.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of
twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to his
prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the
appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount
in his account exceeds $10, until the filing fee is paid in full.

Judge Claire notes that the Plaintiff's factual allegations are
sparse. As best as the Court can discern, the Plaintiff purports to
bring a class action concerning one or more executive orders issued
by Governor Gavin Newsom in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the Plaintiff, the order(s) directed CDCR officials to
release 20,000 state inmates who meet certain criteria, including
advanced age, a non-violent offender, and/or disabled.

On Nov. 16, 2020, the Plaintiff submitted a Petition for Release
Due to Coronavirus Pandemic claiming to meet these criteria.
Specifically, the Plaintiff asserted that he is over 60 years old,
his underlying offense was not violent, and he is disabled.
Presumably, the Plaintiff's Petition for Release was denied.

The Plaintiff lists several claims, including violation of due
process right to Governor Gavin Newsom 20,000 release overcrowding
and COVID-19 social distancing.

For relief, the Plaintiff seeks release from prison, damages,
injunctive relief in the form of single cell housing and social
distancing, the provision of unspecified appliances, "attorney
general assistance," and payments under the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

Although the Plaintiff attempts to prosecute this lawsuit as a
class action, he may not do so, Judge Claire holds. A class action
may not be certified where the representative parties are without
counsel and especially where the plaintiff is incarcerated. The
Plaintiff is, therefore, required to amend his complaint clarifying
that he brings this action solely on behalf of himself.

Pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

As currently pled, Judge Claire holds the Plaintiff's complaint
does not contain enough factual details to permit the Court to draw
the reasonable inference that any of the Defendants are liable for
any misconduct. No basic facts are provided. The Plaintiff asserts
only conclusory statements, insufficiently supported by factual
details, which do not suffice to state any claim. For these
reasons, the Plaintiff's complaint fails to comply with Rule 8's
pleading standard, Judge Claire points out.

Relatedly, plaintiff sues the Secretary of the CDCR and the MCSP
Warden but fails to assert any allegations as to either, Judge
Claire says. It appears that the Defendants have been named based
solely on their supervisory positions, which is insufficient to
state a claim for relief, Judge Claire points out. The complaint
is, therefore, also subject to dismissal because the Plaintiff
fails to link any allegations to the named Defendants.

Finally, the Plaintiff's request for release from custody is not a
form of relief available in a civil rights action, Judge Claire
holds. If the Plaintiff wishes to proceed with a claim that he is
entitled to release from custody pursuant to an executive order
issued by the Governor, he must do so in a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus filed in a new case. However, the Plaintiff is
advised that he may not contest the state's denial of a request for
compassionate release in federal court.

The Plaintiff is further advised that before he may file a habeas
petition in this Court, he must first exhaust any constitutional
claims by raising them in the California Supreme Court.

Judge Claire holds that the Plaintiff fails to state any claims for
relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiff will be given an
opportunity to amend the complaint. In an amended complaint, Judge
Claire says the Plaintiff must address the problems with his
complaint that are explained here.

Judge Claire notes that the Plaintiff need not provide every
detailed fact in support of the claims. Rather, the Plaintiff
should provide a short, plain statement of each claim.

Accordingly, Judge Claire rules that:

   1. The Clerk of Court will send the Plaintiff a copy of the
      Court's Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner form;

   2. The Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma
      pauperis is granted;

   3. The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee
      of $350 for this action. The Plaintiff is assessed an
      initial partial filing fee in accordance with the
      provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1). All fees will
      be collected and paid in accordance with this Court's order
      to the Director of the California Department of Corrections
      and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith; and

   4. Within 30 days from the date of this Order, the Plaintiff
      will file a first amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/nhfdwrt2 from Leagle.com.


CARPENTERS OF WESTERN: Court Denies Johnson's Bids to Strike Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled TERRANCE JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs v.
CARPENTERS OF WESTERN WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. C22-1079-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C.
Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle:

   (1) grants the Motion for Declaratory Judgment and
       Indemnification filed by Defendants Martin Holberg, Randy
       Boettcher, Jeff Foushee, Kurt Hildebrand, Eric Jones,
       Andrew Ledbetter, Jim Osborne, Doug Peterson and Wilf
       Wainhouse (the "Moving Parties"); and

   (2) denies the Plaintiffs' motions to strike indemnification
       claims.

The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action--under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
Section 1000, et seq. ("ERISA")--on behalf of union carpenters in
Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, who were automatically
enrolled in two distinct collectively bargained retirement plans:
the (1) Carpenters Individual Account Pension Plan of Western
Washington ("the Contribution Plan"), and the (2) Carpenters
Retirement Plan of Western Washington ("the Benefit Plan").

The Plans are managed by Defendant Carpenters of Western Washington
Board of Trustees ("the Board") and its financial advisor,
Defendant Callan LLC. During the relevant time period, the
individually named Defendants allegedly served on the Board. Those
persons, along with the Board and Callan LLC, are collectively "the
Defendants" in this matter. The Plaintiffs claim the Defendants
mismanaged the Plans by investing in highly speculative indexes,
which incurred over $250 million in losses.

The Moving Parties seek to establish that the Board is responsible
for indemnifying them in this action. Defendant Ken Ervin moves to
join the present motion. The Board seeks to stay this judgment, or
in the alternative, to limit the scope of indemnification.

The Plaintiffs oppose the indemnification request entirely.
Separately, the Plaintiffs seek to strike the indemnification
claims in the Moving Parties' and Defendant Steve Hoffman's
answers. Because these issues are inextricably intertwined, the
Court considers them together.

On Oct. 3, 2022, the insurance broker for the trusts at issue, the
Marsh McLennan Agency ("MMA"), offered the Board a settlement
proposal regarding insurance coverage for the Board and its former
members in the ongoing litigation. The Board argues that this offer
"obviates the need of any trustee to seek reimbursement from the
Trusts at this time." The Moving Parties assert that the settlement
negotiation between the Board and its insurance provider has "no
relation to the contractually mandated indemnification of volunteer
trustees."

The Court agrees with the Moving Parties. If the Board seeks to
indemnify itself via agreements reached with third parties, it can
do so in a separate action; those relationships and agreements are
not related to the current issue before the Court. Therefore, this
judgment will not be stayed, Judge Coughenour holds.

Judge Coughenour notes that it is undisputed that the Trust
Agreements contain indemnification provisions that require the
Trust to indemnify individual trustees under certain conditions.
The "Trust Agreements" refers to the (1) Trust Agreement Governing
the Carpenters Retirement Trust of Western Washington, and (2) the
Trust Agreement Governing the Carpenters of Western Washington
Individual Account Pension Trust, as in effect Jan. 1, 2019.

The issue before the Court is the scope of the indemnification as
it relates to reasonableness, and potential fiduciary violations.

The Board argues that the Trust Agreements only provide trustees
with reimbursement of reasonable and necessary costs and expenses.
The Moving Parties concede that "the Trust Agreement and ERISA
clearly lay out any limitations on such reimbursement, including
ERISA's requirement that fees be necessary and reasonable."

The Court affirms that these limitations are consistent with the
language of both the Trust Agreements, and ERISA. Therefore, the
Court declares that the Moving Parties are entitled to
indemnification and reimbursement of reasonable costs and
expenses.

The Board asserts that an individual trustee will be obligated to
repay any indemnification coverage if they are found to have
violated their fiduciary duty. The Moving Parties concede this
point, and the Court affirms that this indemnification carve-out is
consistent with the Trust Agreements, ERISA, and the relevant case
law.

Therefore, the Court declares that if a final court decree
establishes personal liability on the part of a specified trustee,
the trustee will be required to bear his or her own costs of
defense and will be obligated to repay any indemnification payments
for his or her pro rata share of costs and fees.

The Moving Parties ask the Court to order that reimbursement and
indemnification be made solely from the Benefit Plan. However, the
Court will defer to the Board, at this time, to decide the
appropriate source of indemnification. Therefore, this request is
denied.

Judge Coughenour finds the Plaintiffs' opposition and motions to
strike fail for lack of standing. The Plaintiffs attempt to
establish standing by citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14.
However, Judge Coughenour points out that the Moving Parties'
motion for indemnification is not directed at a third-party. And
neither is their crossclaim.

While Defendant Hoffman invokes Rule 14 in his claims against the
Trust Funds, Judge Coughenour says his motion is properly construed
as a crossclaim under Rule 13 because Defendant Board is the real
party in interest. Therefore, Judge Coughenour holds Rule 14 does
not apply. Rule 13 does.

The Plaintiffs then try to establish substantive standing on the
grounds they have a "personal stake in the outcome" of this motion
and an "injury in fact."

But they have not pled sufficient facts to satisfy this standard,
Judge Coughenour holds. Instead, they pleaded conclusory claims and
relied on unpublished, out of circuit cases. Judge Coughenour
points out that this is unpersuasive in light of controlling
precedent to the contrary.

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs argue they "do not need 'standing' to
strike the management trustees' crossclaims." Once again, Judge
Coughenour finds the Plaintiffs improperly conflate Rule 14.
Therefore, the Court strikes the Plaintiffs' opposition and denies
the Plaintiff's motions to strike.

For these reasons, the Court grants the Moving Parties' motion, and
Ken Ervin's motion, subject to the limitations expressed in this
order, and denies the Plaintiffs' Motions to Strike

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5fmf2u3h from Leagle.com.


CCA GLOBAL PARTNERS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CCA Global Partners,
Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. CCA Global Partners, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06896 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2022).

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

CCA Global Partners -- https://www.ccaglobalpartners.com/ --
originally called Carpet Co-op of America, is a shared services
membership purchasing cooperative company started in 1984 as a
carpet cooperative business in Manchester, New Hampshire.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CIGNA HEALTH: Court Allows Two More Depositions in RJ Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RJ, et al., Plaintiffs v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02255-EJD
(VKD) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose Division, gives the Plaintiffs leave to take two additional
depositions, for a total of 12.

In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs challenge the
Defendants' alleged failure to reimburse covered mental health
provider claims at the usual, customary, and reasonable rates. They
assert several claims for relief, including for violations of 18
U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and 1962(d), for underpayment of benefits
and breach of plan provisions in violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132(a)(1) and 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3)502(a)(1)(B),
and for breach of fiduciary duties.

Although it is not entirely clear from the joint submission which
depositions have been completed, the Plaintiffs originally noticed
ten fact depositions -- eight individual depositions and two Rule
30(b)(6) depositions (one for each corporate Defendant). Each of
the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions has necessitated the designation of
more than one corporate representative. In addition to these
noticed depositions, the Plaintiffs wish to take the individual
depositions of Keith Jones, a current Cigna employee, and Annette
Parotti, a former employee, as well as the depositions of four
as-yet-unidentified witnesses from four non-party benefit plan
sponsors.

The Defendants' principal objection to these additional depositions
is that the testimony is likely substantially overlapping and
cumulative of deposition testimony the Plaintiffs have already
taken or will take of current and former employees. With respect to
the non-party plan sponsors, they correctly observe that the
Plaintiffs have not identified the plan sponsors or explained why
they need to depose four of them.

Because so few depositions have actually been completed, Judge
DeMarchi holds it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to make the
particularized showing of need for additional depositions that is
usually required. As presented to the Court, it appears that other
witnesses have at least some of the same information, or in the
case of Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses will be prepared to provide some of
the same information, that the Plaintiffs hope to obtain from Jones
and Parotti. While these two witnesses likely have some, limited
unique information relevant to the claims and defenses, Judge
DeMarchi is not persuaded that the burden of undertaking all six of
the additional depositions the Plaintiffs seek is proportional to
the needs of the case.

In view of the time-sensitive nature of this dispute, Judge
DeMarchi resolves the matter as follows: The Plaintiffs may notice
two additional depositions for a total of 12 depositions. The
Plaintiffs may decide which two they wish to take.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n9654ca from Leagle.com.


CLEAN HARBORS: Villamar Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages Earned
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erick Plaza Villamar, an individual and class representative on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated non-exempt
former and current employees v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC., a Massachusetts Corporation; HYDROCHEM LLC DBA
HyDrOCHEMPSC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV34627 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought for violations under
California Private Attorneys General act of 2004 to recover
penalties from unpaid wages earned and interest, attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses.

The Defendant violated the PAGA due to unpaid minimum wages and
unpaid wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime
compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to
timely pay wages, failure to pay all wages due to discharged or
quitting employees, failure to maintain required records, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify
employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in
discharging their duties, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California who was
employed by DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee.

CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. is a company authorized
to do business in the State of California and doing business in the
State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
          Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
          SOLOUKI | SAVOY, LLP
          316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Phone: (213) 814-4940
          Facsimile: (213) 814-2550


COMMUNITY LOAN: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Leszczynski Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY LESZCZYNSKI, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. COMMUNITY LOAN SERVICING, LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-23644-CMA (S.D. Fla., Nov. 7,
2022) alleges that the Defendant disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to take adequate and
reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected
against unauthorized intrusions.

Accordingly, the Defendant also failed to disclose that it did not
have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to
safeguard customer PII; failed to take standard and reasonably
available steps to prevent the Data Breach; failing to properly
train its staff and employees on proper security measures; and
failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt notice of the
Data Breach.

Between October 27, 2021, and December 7, 2021 an unknown and
unauthorized criminal actor gained access to Defendant's network
and exfiltrated information including the Plaintiff and Class
Members' names, social security numbers, and other information
related provided to Defendant in connection with loan applications,
loan modifications, or other items regarding loan servicing
("PII").

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered injury and ascertainable losses in the form of the present
and imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, loss of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack, and the loss of, and diminution in, value of their
personal information, says the suit.

Community loan maintains lines of business in the mortgage
servicing industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

                - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 289-9471
          Direct: (305) 975-3320
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

COMPASS INC: Sheppard's Bids to Remand and for Atty.'s Fees Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Trina L. Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies the Plaintiffs' motion to remand and
request for attorney's fees in the lawsuit entitled LISA SHEPPARD,
et al., Plaintiffs v. COMPASS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-03237-TLT (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Lisa and Todd Sheppard originally filed this action in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sonoma and allege, among other things, breach of contract, fraud,
and various California Labor Code violations.

The Defendants removed the case to this Court pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). In support of CAFA jurisdiction, they
assert that, when aggregated, the Plaintiffs' claims exceed $5
million in damages, that more than 100 potential class members
exist, and that there is minimal diversity between the parties.

The Plaintiffs do not dispute any of the elements for jurisdiction
under CAFA. Instead, they move to remand the action back to state
court because, they argue, the Defendants delayed for over one year
before seeking removal; hence, the removal is time-barred. And,
Compass has not met its burden of showing 'bad faith' on the part
of the Plaintiffs to explain and justify Compass' untimely removal.
In short, the Plaintiffs argue the Defendants failed to remove this
action within the time limits permitted by 28 U.S.C. Section 1446.

Judge Thompson notes that it is undisputed that the Defendants were
formally served on May 3, 2022. Therefore, the Defendants had until
June 2, 2022, to remove the case from state to federal court.
Because the Defendants filed their notice of removal within 30 days
of May 3, 2022, Judge Thompson holds removal is timely. Finally,
because the Plaintiffs emailed, not mailed, the Defendants' counsel
notice and acknowledgment forms without a summons, the Plaintiffs
did not satisfy the requirements for proper service by mail under
California Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30(a).

The Plaintiffs next contend that the Defendants waived their right
to remove because they "sandbagged the Plaintiffs by representing
that Compass would mediate, with the first mediation scheduled for
January 2022 and then a second mediation with a different mediator
to settle the case on a class-wide basis in March 2022, only to
abort the mediation sessions and convincing Plaintiffs to pay a
cancellation fee for the first mediation, even though Compass
unilaterally canceled both mediations."

Judge Thompson finds that the Defendants' alleged waiver was not
clear or unequivocal. The Defendants informed the Plaintiffs of
their intent to remove the case to federal court upon service. In
addition, it is unclear whether the Defendants ever appeared in the
state court action. For example, the Plaintiffs filed two status
reports in state court. However, neither report is signed by the
Defendants' counsel.

The Plaintiffs request $3,750 in fees their counsel incurred in
preparing, briefing, and filing the present motion to remand. The
Defendants do not take issue with counsel's hourly rates, or the
total time spent on this matter. The point of contention is whether
the Defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removal.

For the reasons discussed, Judge Thompson finds the Defendants'
removal was objectively reasonable because there is authority from
the Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit, and California district courts
supporting their position. Because the Court holds that removal was
timely and denies the Motion to Remand, the Court also denies
Plaintiffs' request for fees.

For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.
Accordingly, the Motion to Remand hearing set for Nov. 15, 2022, is
vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8f7wmf from Leagle.com.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Wins Bid to Reassign Ruiz Suit to Judge Gettleman
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHY RICHBURG, ADRIANA GAMBOA, JEFFREY KOENIG, and
CINDY MCGLONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
22 CV 2420 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, grants the Defendant's motion to reassign Julie Ruiz v.
Conagra Brands, Inc., No. 22 CV 2421, from the Honorable Jorge L.
Alonso to him, with limitations.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, bring this 10-count class action complaint against
Conagra, alleging that the Defendant deceptively marketed its
Orville Redenbacher's(R) microwave popcorn products. The Defendant
is a prominent packaged food manufacturer that produces a variety
of well-known food products, including microwave popcorn.

The Plaintiffs are concerned specifically with the Defendant's
Redenbacher products, although it produces a variety of microwave
popcorn products. Based on information and belief, the Plaintiffs
allege that all of the Defendant's Redenbacher products utilize a
substantially similar microwave popping bag.

The Plaintiffs claim that microwave popcorn creates a "unique risk"
of exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") because
PFAS are used in food contact materials like microwave popping
bags. According to them, PFAS are "a category of human-made
chemicals with a toxic, persistent, bioaccumulative nature which
are associated with numerous health concerns."

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant intentionally utilizes its
marketing to drive sales and increase profits from health-conscious
consumers. They believe that the Defendant's marketing and labeling
strategies are deceitful because it allegedly aggressively and
strategically utilizes misleading representations "to convince
consumers that the Products are free of unnatural or artificial
ingredients." According to them, the Defendant labels its
Redenbacher products as containing "only real ingredients" and
"100% ingredients from natural sources" when instead they contain
harmful PFAS levels.

The Plaintiffs bring the instant suit to "halt Conagra's
dissemination of false and misleading representations and to
correct the false and misleading perception that Conagra's
representations have created in the minds of reasonable consumers."
They bring individual and class claims under consumer fraud and
deceptive trade practice statutes in Illinois (Counts I and II),
California (Counts III, IV, and V), New York (Counts VI and VII),
Florida (Count VIII), in addition to a multi-state consumer
protection class (Count IX) and nationwide class (Count XI).

The Plaintiffs claim that they, and the class members, were harmed
when they purchased the Defendant's Redenbacher products because of
its material representations (i.e., that the Defendant's
Redenbacher products are made with only "natural" and "real"
ingredients) and omissions (i.e., that the Defendant's Redenbacher
products are packaged in bags containing significant levels of
migrating PFAS). The Plaintiffs allege that they, and other
reasonable consumers, would not have purchased the Redenbacher
products if the Defendant had disclosed the presence of PFAS in its
advertising.

On the same day that the Plaintiffs filed the instant case, Julie
Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, brought another class action complaint against the
Defendant in this Court concerning its allegedly false and
misleading labeling of another of its microwave popcorn products,
Ruiz v. Conagra Brands, Inc., No. 22 CV 2421. Unlike the instant
case, which involves the Defendant's Redenbacher products, Ruiz
involves the Defendant's Angie's BOOMCHICKAPOP(R) microwave popcorn
products ("BOOMCHICKAPOP products").

Ruiz claims that the Defendant's labeling of its BOOMCHICKAPOP
products as containing "only real ingredients," "ingredients
sourced from nature," and "Real, Simple Ingredients. Nothing Fake."
is false. The plaintiff alleges that instead, the Defendant's
BOOMCHICKAPOP products contain significant levels of PFAS as a
direct consequence of PFAS migration from their microwave popping
bags. Like in the instant case, the plaintiff bases her claims on
the results of independent third-party testing. She argues that
defendant's misleading representations and omissions induced her,
and other reasonable consumers in the class, to purchase a harmful
product. She brings individual and class claims under California
consumer fraud and deceptive trade practice statutes (Counts I, II,
and III), as well as multi-state consumer protection (Count IV) and
nationwide (Count V) classes.

The Defendant has moved to dismiss this class action complaint, in
addition to moving the Court to take judicial notice of the Food &
Drug Administration's "Authorized Uses of PFAS in Food Contact
Applications." Both motions remain pending because the Court
granted the Defendant's unopposed motion to stay the proceedings
until the Court resolves the instant motion. In the instant motion,
the Defendant moves the Court to reassign Ruiz from Judge Alonso to
Judge Gettleman, pursuant to Local Rule 40.4 as a related case.

In support of its motion to reassign Ruiz from Judge Alonso to
Judge Gettleman, the Defendant argues that both cases involve
substantially similar factual allegations and address overlapping
legal issues. Both Ruiz and the instant case were filed on the same
day, by the same law firm, against the same defendant. According to
the Defendant, the two cases concern "nearly identical
allegations." Discovery has not begun in either case, and the
Defendant has filed motions to dismiss in both cases, which were
filed on the same day, on the same grounds. The Defendant argues
that reassignment will save substantial judicial resources and
avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings.

Notably, the Plaintiffs do not oppose the relief sought in the
Defendant's motion to the extent that the Defendant seeks to
reassign the Ruiz case to the Richburg case (including to
coordinate certain matters, such as discovery) pursuant to Local
Rule 40.4. They argue that consolidation is inappropriate and that
courts generally address reassignment differently than
consolidation.

Judge Gettelman finds that reassignment does not require that the
two cases be bound together for all purposes, and given the
Plaintiffs' concerns, he grants the Defendant's motion while
exercising discretion to defer for later resolution whether the
cases should be consolidated.

For these reasons, Judge Gettleman grants the Defendant's motion to
relate and reassign, although he does not grant, at this time, the
Defendant's motion to the extent, if any, that it seeks to
consolidate the cases. He finds that the instant case is related to
Ruiz within the meaning of Local Rule 40.4(a) and that reassignment
of Ruiz to his calendar is appropriate under Local Rule 40.4(b).
The parties are directed to submit a joint proposed briefing
schedule for the pending motions to dismiss and for judicial
notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mvh8jad3 from
Leagle.com.


CREDIT LINK LLC: Frazier FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tamara S. Frazier, individually, and on behalf
of other similarly situated consumers v. Credit Link LLC, Case No.
2022L006743 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Law
Department, to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of
Illinois on Sept. 26, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-05226 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Credit Link -- https://www.credit-link.com/ -- is a credit
reporting agency in Warrenville, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank P. Venis, Esq.
          VENIS & COPP LLP
          205 W. Randolph St., Suite 2000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 965-9476
          Email: venis@venisandcopp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elysia Anne Lampert, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          321 N. Clark St. Ste. 3000
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 832-4948
          Email: elampert@foley.com


DIRECTV LLC: Court Defers Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Vance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID VANCE, ROXIE VANCE, and CARLA SHULTZ,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DIRECTV, LLC, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 5:17-CV-179 (N.D.W. Va.), Judge John Preston Bailey of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
Wheeling:

   a. grants the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended
      Answer;

   b. grants the Defendant's Motion to File Under Seal Certain
      Documents Relating to its Motion to Compel Arbitration;

   c. defers ruling on the Defendant's Motion to Compel
      Arbitration and Modify the Class Definition;

   d. grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
      for Reconsideration; and

   e. grants the Defendant's Motion to Stay Decision on its
      Motion to Compel Arbitration.

Judge Bailey examines the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File
Amended Answer. Originally, the case was brought on Dec. 11, 2017,
on behalf of a sole plaintiff residing in West Virginia. The
Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint several times. The
third amended complaint added three new named Plaintiffs: Craig
Cunningham, Stewart Abramson, and James Shelton -- none of whom
lived in West Virginia.

Subsequently, the Defendant moved to dismiss those named Plaintiffs
for lack of personal jurisdiction. This Court granted that Motion
in part. The Defendant then filed its first answer. Despite
preserving numerous affirmative defenses with respect to putative
class members, the Defendant did not mention a personal
jurisdiction defense in its answer.

On July 3, 2021, with leave of the Court, the Plaintiffs filed a
fourth amended complaint. This complaint narrowed the claims and
the classes to only calls made by AC1 on behalf of the Defendant,
reflected the dismissal of several Plaintiffs and numerous
Defendants, incorporated factual information obtained in discovery,
and amended allegations regarding AC1's use of an automatic
telephone dialing system ("ATDS") after the Supreme Court of the
United States' decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 1163
(2021).

In light of Duguid, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
ATDS claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court granted the motion,
dismissing Count I (the ATDS claim and corresponding class) from
the fourth amended complaint. The Defendant then filed its second
answer. Again, it asserted and preserved at least five affirmative
defenses as to the putative class members. Therein, the Defendant
did not preserve an affirmative defense under Rule 12(b)(2).

The parties continued to pursue discovery and litigate the
Defendant's appeal of the Court's Order denying the motion to
compel arbitration of the Plaintiff Mey's claim. Ultimately,
because Ms. Mey's only claim (calls made using an ATDS) would be
moot on remand under the Court's prior ruling, the Court indicated
it would grant the Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss Ms.
Mey's claim and vacate the Order that was the subject of the
appeal. The Fourth Circuit then remanded the case for that limited
purpose. On Feb. 22, 2022, this Court granted the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to dismiss Ms. Mey and vacated its prior ruling on
arbitration.

The same day, the Plaintiffs moved to file the operative fifth
amended complaint, which dropped the dismissed Count I and
corresponding class, dropped the named Plaintiffs who only alleged
AIDS claims, and added Ms. Shultz as a plaintiff and class
representative. The Court granted their motion, and on Feb. 23,
2022, the Plaintiffs filed the now operative fifth amended
complaint. The Defendant then filed its third answer and asserted
and preserved at least five affirmative defenses as to the putative
class members. Therein, it did not preserve an affirmative defense
under Rule 12(b)(2).

On April 11, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved to certify the nationwide
class of people that has been included in every version of the
complaint to which the Defendant has filed an answer. On June 10,
2022, the Defendant opposed class certification, arguing the Court
lacked personal jurisdiction over putative class members. The
subject Motion followed.

The Defendant argues it should be permitted to add the affirmative
defense of lack of personal jurisdiction over putative class
members to its answer. In response, the Plaintiffs argue against
the proposed amendment by contending the Defendant fails to satisfy
the good cause standard for amendment under Rule 16(b) and Local
Rule 16.01(f). The Defendant reasserts its position concerning
amendment in its reply briefing.

Judge Bailey agrees with the Defendant. With respect to the
Plaintiffs' argument under Rule 16(b), he finds the same to fail
for two distinct reasons. First, the Rule is inapplicable.
Moreover, even if the Court were to apply Rule 16(b), the
Defendant's proposed amendment would still satisfy the good cause
standard contained therein.

Concerning waiver, Judge Bailey is not persuaded by the Plaintiffs'
argument. He says the Defendant's personal jurisdiction defense as
to absent class members first became available when the Court
certified a nationwide class on Aug. 1, 2022. It was at that point
when those individuals became class members and therefore parties
to the case.

Finally, Judge Bailey does not find the Defendant's proposed
amendment to be clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face. He
says the Defendant's personal jurisdiction argument against
out-of-state class members is now the subject of its Rule 23(f)
petition pending in the Fourth Circuit, and is the subject of
debate by various circuits. Accordingly, he grants the Motion for
Leave to File Amended Answer.

Judge Bailey also grants the Defendant's Motion to File Under Seal
Certain Documents Relating to its Motion to Compel Arbitration will
be granted and defers his ruling on the Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Modify the Class Definition.

In their Motion to Reconsider Order Staying Case, the Plaintiffs
request the Court to reconsider its September 14 Order staying the
litigation pending the outcome of the Defendant's arbitration
appeal and its Rule 23(f) petition. They contend that lifting the
stay would streamline the litigation because it would permit the
Court to address the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended
Answer and its Motion to Compel Arbitration and Modify the Class
Definition.

While he agrees to lift the stay solely for the purposes of
addressing the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer
as it has done, Judge Bailey declines to lift the stay to address
the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Modify the Class
Definition. To that extent, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider
Order Staying Case is granted in part and denied in part.

In their Motion to Stay Decision on its Motion to Compel
Arbitration, the Defendant requests the Court to decline from
entering any dispositive ruling on its Motion to Compel Arbitration
pending the outcome of its current appeal from the denial of its
motion to compel Plaintiff Carla Shultz's claims to arbitration.

Judge Bailey defers his ruling on the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration, and grants its request for deferral. He finds that the
motion cannot be resolved presently because these remedies would
undoubtedly alter the status of the case as it rests before the
court of appeals. Further, even if the Court had jurisdiction on
this issue, it may lose the power to issue or enforce its order if
it were to resolve the Motion to Compel Arbitration at this
juncture. If the Court were to compel claims of absent class
members to arbitration, and if the Fourth Circuit were to reverse
or vacate the underlying class-certification order, the decision on
appeal could retroactively invalidate this Court's order on the
Motion to Compel Arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Memorandum Order &
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3upzmhnd from
Leagle.com.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Williams Suit Removed to M.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Linda Williams, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Case No.
69-CV-2022-900051.00 was removed from the Circuit Court of Barbour
County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama on Nov. 11, 2022, and assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-00656.

The Plaintiff sued Dollar General over her purchase of "potentially
harmful consumable products" from Dollar General resulting from an
alleged "rodent infestation" at a particular distribution center.
Plaintiff asserts five counts alleging violation of the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"), negligence, breach of
implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent
concealment/failure to disclosure.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          Robert G. Methvin, Jr. , Esq.
          METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 1-800-210-7476
          Email: jterrell@mtattorneys.com
                 rgm@mtattorneys.com

               - and -

          Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
          PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN P.C.
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 322-8880
          Fax: (205) 328-2711
          Email: chrish@pittmandutton.com
                 jonm@pittmandutton.com

               - and -

          Wm. Eric Colley, Esq.
          P.O. Box 681045
          Fort Payne, AL 35968
          Phone: (256) 845-8101
          Fax: (256) 845-8103
          Email: colleyw@bellsouth.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          John David Collins, Esq.
          Emily C. Burke, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Ave. North, Suite 1700
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 205.254.1000
          Fax: 205.254.1999
          Email: jbaker@maynardcooper.com
                 eburke@mayanrdcooper.com


DOT COMPLIANCE GROUP: Gordon Sues to Recover Unpaid, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Gordon, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DOT Compliance Group, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-02545-S
(N.D. Tex., Nov. 11, 2022), is brought for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and to recover unpaid wages and overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly employee and
was not paid for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek.
During the Plaintiff's entire employment, the Defendant would shave
or reduce Plaintiff's reported hours, resulting in underpayment of
Plaintiff's regular and overtime hours. The Defendant intentionally
and unlawfully shaved or reduced hours of its hourly employees to
avoid or minimize the Defendant's obligation to pay the Plaintiff
and Collective Members all compensation they were owed, including
overtime compensation when they worked over 40 hours in a workweek,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a biennial agent.

The Defendant's business is to provide trucking companies with
compliance programs regarding various state and federal laws and
regulations, and to assist customers with administering their
compliance programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          Allison H. Luttrell, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Phone: 817-479-9229
          Fax: 817-840-5102
          Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                 pamela@herrmannlaw.com
                 allison@herrmannlaw.com


DOUGHP INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doughp, Inc. The case
is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Doughp, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09672
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2022).

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

Doughp, Inc. -- https://www.doughp.com/ -- offers edible and
bakeable, ridiculously tasty cookie dough fueling raw conversation
and breaking stigmas around mental health/addiction recovery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


DYNCORP INT'L: Court Grants Del Fierro's Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California grants the Plaintiff's renewed motion for
class certification in the lawsuit titled RAMON DEL FIERRO,
Plaintiff v. DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC, Defendants, Case No. CV
19-07091 DDP (JCx) (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff worked for Dyncorp at the Point Mugu Naval Air
Station from December 2016 to July 2019. He alleges, on behalf of a
putative class, that Dyncorp violated California Labor Code Section
226 by failing to provide wage statements that accurately
identified the applicable rate of pay and hours worked for certain
"shift premiums."

The Plaintiff previously moved to certify a class comprised of "all
current and former California non-exempt employees of Defendant
DynCorp International, LLC ("Defendant") who were paid any shift
premium wages (including certification premiums) at any time from
August 14, 2018, through the date that the class is certified."
Many putative class members, however, were employed by Dyncorp at
other California locations, including military bases other than
Point Mugu. These varying work locations potentially implicated the
"federal enclave" doctrine. Subsequent, relatively minor changes to
existing state law may also apply to federal enclaves.

The Court concluded that the Plaintiff had failed to show that the
federal enclave doctrine would apply uniformly to all the locations
at which putative class members worked, and that he had, thus,
failed to demonstrate that the class certification requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were met. In other words,
because the various work locations became federal enclaves at
different times, Section 226 might apply to some Dyncorp employees,
but not others, and individual questions might thus predominate.
Accordingly, the Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, without prejudice.

The Plaintiff now brings a renewed Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiff's renewed motion seeks certification of a different
class, comprised of "All current and former non-exempt employees of
[Dyncorp] who were paid any shift premiums . . . and did not work
at a property that became a federal enclave before 1943. . . ."

The Plaintiff here seeks certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3),
which requires that questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over individual questions and that a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

As with the Plaintiff's initial motion for class certification,
several of the Rule 23 factors are not in dispute. Dyncorp appears
to concede, for example, that the putative class includes
approximately 300 members, if not more. And, as before, there is at
the very least a common question as to whether each class member
received accurate and adequate wage statements.

Indeed, of the Rule 23 factors, Dyncorp's opposition mentions only
two: typicality and predominance. The substantive basis of
Dyncorp's opposition, however, is not entirely clear, Judge
Pregerson notes. Dyncorp asserts that the Plaintiff has again
failed to show that the federal enclave doctrine applies uniformly
to the proposed class, thus, implicating the predominance and
typicality factors.

Judge Pregerson notes that the Plaintiff's earlier
mischaracterization of the federal enclave doctrine, however, is
not repeated in the current motion, and appears to have little
bearing on the uniformity of the revised proposed class. Section
226 took effect in June 1943. The Plaintiff's proposed class does
not include any Dyncorp employees, who worked on bases that became
federal enclaves prior to that date. Nor does the class include any
Dyncorp employees, who worked on bases that became federal enclaves
after 1961.

Thus, Judge Pregerson says it appears that Section 226 will apply
equally to all putative class members, either directly or by way of
the federal enclave doctrine, that common issues, therefore,
predominate, and that the Plaintiff is an adequate class
representative.

For the reasons stated, the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is
granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n7cxwnb from Leagle.com.


EINSTEIN ASSOCIATES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Einstein Associates
LLC. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Einstein Associates LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-09673 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2022).

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

Einstein Associates provides high-quality medical equipment,
mobility aids and other home health care supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com

EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Court Reviews Partial Dismissal of Faulker Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COLLEEN FAULKNER, et al., Plaintiffs v. EQUINOX
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22cv242 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration of a Nov. 1, 2022 Order that granted in part
and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Judge Cote grants the motion for reconsideration with respect to
the dismissal of Tew's class action claims under the New York State
Human Rights Law, Executive Law Section 290 et seq. ("NYSHRL") and
the New York City Human Rights Law, the Administrative Code of the
City of New York Section 8-107 et seq. ("NYCHRL") that are
addressed to the Defendant's gender preference policy. She and
Colleen Faulkner may both seek to pursue this claim as a named
plaintiff.

In Hoffman v. Parade Publications, 15 N.Y.3d 285 (2010), the New
York Court of Appeals held that the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL protect
nonresident employees "who work in" the state and the city,
respectively. The impact test articulated in Hoffman does not
require Tew to be a New York City or New York State resident.

Tew has adequately pled that she worked at Equinox at the 54 Murray
Street location in New York City from 2017 until her firing in
2020. Upon further reconsideration, Tew's individual claims under
the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL for pregnancy and disability
discrimination are not dismissed.

Judge Cote denies the motion for reconsideration with respect to
Faulkner's individual gender discrimination claims under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C Section 2000e et seq., the
NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL. Judge Cote finds that Faulkner failed to
state a claim under any of the three statutes for either the
failure of her manager to train with her, the failure to adequately
acknowledge the anniversary of her employment, or the cancellation
of Faulkner's professional development meeting.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p85m4pk from Leagle.com.


FASHION NOVA: Stewart Sues Over False & Misleading Price Reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bria Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FASHION NOVA, LLC, Case No. 22STCV34932 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 2, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of California's False Advertising due to
false or misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for,
existence of, or amounts of price reductions.

While there is nothing wrong with a legitimate sale, a fake
one--that is, one with made up regular prices, made up discounts,
and made-up expirations--is deceptive and illegal. Fashion Nova's
website prominently advertises sales on its websites. These
advertisements include purported regular prices and purported
discounts. Everything about the advertisements is false. Fashion
Nova's products do not retail at the supposed regular prices it
lists.

The Plaintiff bought multiple items of clothing from Fashion Nova.
Like Fashion Nova's other customers, when the Plaintiff bought
Fashion Nova's products, Fashion Nova advertised that a purported
sale was going on. the Plaintiff believed that the Fashion Nova
Products that she purchased retailed for the displayed regular
price. She further believed that she was getting a substantial
discount from the regular price. These reasonable beliefs are what
caused her to buy from Fashion Nova when she did. If the products
she purchased weren't on sale, she would not have bought them and
would have instead comparison shopped.

But none of that was true. Fashion Nova's published regular prices
were fake; the products the Plaintiff bought were not actually sold
at those prices. Had Fashion Nova been truthful, Plaintiff and
other consumers would not have purchased the products or would have
paid less for them, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a consumer who purchased Fashion Nova Products.

Fashion Nova sells and markets clothing and accessory products that
are sold online through the Defendant's website,
fashionnova.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christin Cho, Esq.
          Simon Franzini, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Phone: (310) 656-7066
          Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
          Email: christin@dovel.com
                 simon@dovel.com


FCA US: Hunter Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------
Eric Hunter, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Corp., Case No. 22CV403295 was
removed from the Superior Court of the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Santa Clara, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 2,
2022, and assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-06777-HSG.

The Plaintiff is a California resident who purchased a model-year
2019 Jeep Wrangler vehicle from Gilroy Jeep in Gilroy, California
on an unspecified date. The Plaintiff alleges that, at some point
"outside of the warranty window," his vehicle "stopped functioning
entirely" and "displayed a sway bar fault notification on his
dashboard." Plaintiff contends the "sway bars" in the subject
vehicles are defective because their circuit boards are "prone to
failure" and thus may "result in a disconnected or malfunctioning
sway bar," which could lead to a loss of control and a driver
"flipping the car when driving at a high speed, particularly on a
curve." According to the Plaintiff, FCA US represented that the
subject vehicles "had characteristics and benefits that they do not
have" and "were of a particular standard, quality or grade when
they were of another." The Plaintiff also avers that FCA US failed
to disclose the existence of the alleged defect in the subject
vehicles to consumers.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexander M. Carnevale, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 282-2500
          Fax: (310) 282-2501
          Email: acarnevale@thompsoncoburn.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
          Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: (314) 552-6000
          Fax: (314) 552-7000
          Email: sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
                 tazar@thompsoncoburn.com


FLAGSTAR BANK: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Saucedo Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIANO SAUCEDO, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, and TRANS UNION LLC, Case
No. 5:22-cv-07000-BLF (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard personally
identifiable information that Defendant stored on its network
systems, including, without limitation, names, addresses, Social
Security numbers, and financial information..

On June 2, 2022, the Defendant discovered that an unauthorized
actor "accessed and/or acquired" the information of more than
1,500,000 individuals from its network between December 3, 2021 and
December 4, 2021 (the "Data Breach"). While the Defendant
discovered that information had been exfiltrated on or before June
2, 2022 after "an extensive forensic investigation and manual
document review," Defendant has not revealed precisely when it
learned of the Data Breach.

Accordingly, this was Defendant's second major data breach in 2021.
Indeed, on January 22, 2021, the Defendant learned that an
unauthorized actor breached the Defendant's vendor's file sharing
platform, which the Defendant had used to store its current and
previous customers' information. The Plaintiff and Class Members
have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These
injuries include lost or diminished value of PII, says the suit.

The Plaintiff also brings this action individually against
TransUnion for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Following the Data Breach Plaintiff ordered a credit report from
TransUnion to ascertain whether his PII had been improperly
utilized by malfeasors. Upon receipt of that report, the Plaintiff
discovered that several fraudulent transactions had indeed been
made using his PII, including a $31,081 loan from Lending Point
LLC.

The Plaintiff informed TransUnion of this and disputed the items on
the report. Rather than correct the information on Plaintiff's
credit report, TransUnion informed him that it had investigated the
items and verified them as accurate.

Flagstar Bank is a bank headquartered in Michigan. It is the
primary subsidiary of Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., a bank holding
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          Dan Keller, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612-3547
          Telephone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  DKeller@TheMMLawFirm.com

FONTERRA COOPERATIVE: Settles Farmers' Class Suit for A$25-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
RNZ reports that dairy giant Fonterra has agreed to pay A$25
million (NZ $27m) to settle a class action claim brought by
Australian farmers over a cut in milk payouts six years ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FPI MANAGEMENT INC: Servin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FPI Management Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Juan Gonzalez Servin, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. FPI Management Inc., Does
1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00327334-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Sept. 26, 2022).

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

FPI Management -- https://fpimgt.com/ -- is a privately owned,
exclusive third party, multifamily property manager.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Phone: 818-609-0807
          Fax: 818-609-0892

               - and -

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          8880 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Fax: (310) 432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com


FTX TRADING: Faces Class Action Over Unregistered Securities
------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Godoy at Reuters reports that U.S. crypto investors sued FTX
founder Sam Bankman-Fried and several celebrities who promoted his
exchange including NFL quarterback Tom Brady and comedian Larry
David, claiming they engaged in deceptive practices to sell FTX
yield-bearing digital currency accounts.

The proposed class action filed in Miami alleges that FTX
yield-bearing accounts were unregistered securities that were
unlawfully sold in the United States.

FTX filed for bankruptcy and is facing scrutiny from U.S.
authorities amid reports that $10 billion in customer assets were
shifted from FTX to Bankman-Fried's trading company Alameda
Research.

At least $1 billion in client funds are missing, sources have told
Reuters.

When the crypto exchange faltered on liquidity concerns, U.S.
investors sustained $11 billion in damages, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit seeks damages from Bankman-Fried and 11 athletes and
other celebrities who promoted FTX, including David, the creator of
"Seinfeld" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm." [GN]

GANNETT CO: Must Face Class Action Over Mismanaged 401(k) Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Gannett Co.
workers challenging the stock of former parent company Tegna Inc.
in their 401(k) plan can go to trial as a certified class of 12,000
people, a Virginia federal court ruled.

The opinion, which granted the workers class status and denied
Gannett's request to resolve the case before trial, focused largely
on the "threshold question" of whether Gannett could avoid
liability for the Tegna stock investment by pointing to an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act safe harbor that shields plan
fiduciaries from liability for the investment choices made by plan
participants. [GN]





GOOD FUN FOODS: Blanco Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Sergio Galicia Blanco, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GOOD FUN FOODS INC. d/b/a SO FAR SO
GOOD RESTAURANT and NANCY CHAO, as an individual, Case No.
2:22-cv-06551 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought to recover
damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state the
Federal and New York State labor laws, and federal wage and hour
laws arising out of the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff
minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was paid by the Defendants a flat weekly rate of
$470.00 per week. Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the
legally prescribed minimum wage for his hours worked, a blatant
violation of the minimum wage provisions contained in the FLSA and
NYLL. Although the Plaintiff regularly worked 66 hours or more
hours each week, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at a wage
rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40
hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was were employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher,
cleaner and busboy while performing related miscellaneous duties
for the Defendants, from July 2020 until September 2020 and from
April 2021 until May 2021.

KW NY CONSTRUCTION INC., is a New York domestic business
corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Phone: 718-263-9591

GREAT DANE: Bouzekri Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Bouzekri, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. GREAT DANE OPCO, LLC, d/b/a GREAT NORTHERN FOOD HALL, and BRYAN
FLODMAND, Case No. 1:22-cv-09334 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law, that she is entitled to recover from the Defendants:
unpaid wages, including overtime, due to a fixed salary; unpaid
wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; unpaid spread of
hours premium; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was not always paid the overtime premium of
one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for their hours
worked in excess of 40 per week due to an improper fixed salary and
time shaving, as required under the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff
was time shaved and not compensated for all her hours worked. The
Plaintiff was subject to a 30-minute meal break deduction. The
Plaintiff regularly could not take full meal breaks as the
Defendants required Plaintiff to perform work while she was
supposed to be on break. Despite, not taking her full break the
Plaintiff was always deducted 30 minutes from their wages. As a
result, the Plaintiff was time shaved a total 2.5 hours per week.
The Plaintiff and Class Members regularly worked days that exceeded
10 hours in length, but the Defendants unlawfully failed to pay the
Plaintiff the spread of hours premium for workdays that exceeded 10
hours in length, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from December 2019
until January 2020.

The Defendants owned and operated a Restaurant, which was located
inside of Grand Central terminal. The Restaurant also included a
bakery, bar, and a deli.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-465-1180
          Fax: 212-465-1181


GREEN DOT: Class Settlement in Boardman Suit Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA BOARDMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GREEN DOT CORPORATION, Case No. 3:21-cv-00174-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.),
the Hon. Judge Frank D. Whitney entered an order:

   1. granting the Parties' unopposed motion for attorneys'
      fees, expenses, and incentive award; and

   2. granting unopposed motion for final approval of class
      settlement

On July 1, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
proposed class action settlement. The Court also provisionally
certified the Settlement Class for settlement purposes, approved
the procedure for giving Class Notice to the members of Unless
otherwise defined, capitalized terms herein have the definitions
found in the Settlement Agreement.

The Court finally certifies the Settlement Class, as identified in
the Settlement Agreement:

   "All persons within the United States, for the time period
   beginning April 20, 2017 to the present who sent a Stop
   message or otherwise opted out of receiving text messages
   from Green Dot; and Defendant sent one or more text messages
   to that telephone number."

   Excluded from the Settlement Class are:

   (1) anyone who only received non-telemarketing messages that
       they agreed to receive or were otherwise permissible
       under the law;

   (2) the trial judge and magistrate judge presiding over this
       case;

   (3) Defendant, as well as any parent, subsidiary, affiliate,
       and the officers, directors, agents, members, managers,
       servants, or employees of Defendant;

   (4) any of the Released Parties;

   (5) the immediate family of any such person(s);

   (6) Plaintiff's Counsel, their employees, and their immediate
       family; and

   (7) all persons who file a timely and proper request to be
       excluded from the Settlement Class in accordance with
       Section III(D) of the Settlement Agreement.

The Green Dot Corporation is an American financial technology and
bank holding company headquartered in Austin

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EqeO5rat no extra charge.[CC]

GROENDYKE TRANSPORT: Seeks to Stay Brown Conditional Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY BROWN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GROENDYKE
TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00549-J (W.D. Okla.), the
Defendant moves the Court to enter a stay with respect to
Plaintiffs' pending request for Conditional Certification and enter
a Scheduling Order allowing limited discovery and motion practice
on the issue of whether Plaintiffs were properly classified as
exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Specifically, the Defendant requests one 120 days to depose
Plaintiffs Brown and Hensen, and for Plaintiffs to depose
representatives of Defendants should they so choose, and to submit
a dispositive motion on the critical primary issue of whether or
not Groendyke misclassified its logistics coordinators as exempt
employees in the first place.

The Plaintiff Ashley Brown initiated this action on June 29, 2022.
The Defendant Groendyke was subsequently served with process and
filed its Answer on August 5, 2022.

The Plaintiff Eric Hansen opted into this lawsuit on September 1,
2022. The Plaintiffs filed their Opening Motion for Conditional
Certification and Notice of a Collective Action and Brief in
Support on September 26, 2022.

Groendyke Transport Inc., is a carrier company that provides
tank-truck transportation services and logistics solutions to
chemical, petroleum, and grain manufacturers.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UVWOp9at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allison H. Peregory, Esq.
          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew Thomson, Esq.
          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          Jeff A. Taylor, Esq.
          E-mail: aperegory@herrmannlaw.com
                  drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com
                  hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  mthomson@llrlaw.com
                  osavytska@llrlaw.com
                  taylorjeff@me.com

Attorneys for Defendant Groendyke Transport, Inc. are:

          Randall J. Wood, Esq.
          Hailey M. Hopper, Esq.
          PIERCE COUCH HENDRICKSON BAYSINGER & GREEN, L.L.P.
          1109 N. Francis
          Oklahoma City, OK 73106
          Telephone: (405) 235-1611
          Facsimile: (405) 235-2904
          E-mail: rwood@piercecouch.com
                  hhopper@piercecouch.com


GROSSMONT HOSPITAL: Cranton Suit Remanded to San Diego State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JACQUELYN CRANTON, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, Plaintiff v. GROSSMONT
HOSPITAL CORPORATION, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-1315 JLS (MDD) (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California issued an order:

   (1) discharging order to show cause;

   (2) granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand case to state
       court; and

   (3) remanding case.

On Nov. 1, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to
remand, raising substantially the same arguments as the instant
Motion, in a putative class action between the same Parties and
predicated on the same rights.

Accordingly, that same day, the Court ordered the Defendant to show
cause (OSC) why this matter should not also be remanded in light of
the order granting the motion to remand in the other,
"low-numbered" case.

In response to the OSC, the Defendant filed a Notice of Withdrawal
of Its Opposition to Plaintiff's Remand Motion and Notice of
Non-Opposition to the Court's Order.

Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court discharges the OSC,
grants the Plaintiff's Motion, and remands this action to the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego.

As this concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the
Court will close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2ushuyhj from Leagle.com.


HARRISBURG LIV: Fails to Pay Shift Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANICE N. STUMP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HARRISBURG LIV BACON LLC and YELLOW CAB
HOLDINGS PENNSYLVANIA LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01770-CCC (M.D. Pa.,
Nov. 7, 2022) seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Ms. Stump was employed by the Defendants as a Shift Manager from
November 2021 until September 2022 at one of the Defendants'
Wendy's franchised restaurants. She asserts that she has been
required and/or permitted to work hours for which she was not
compensated as a result of Defendants improperly editing the
Plaintiff's time sheet to omit hours worked, including hours
subject to the Plaintiff's regular hourly rate as well as hours in
excess of 40 hours per workweek and subject to overtime pay.

The Defendants violated the overtime provisions of the PMWA as they
failed to pay the Plaintiff and members of the State Class at least
minimum wage for all hours worked, and the required one and
one-half times for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, says the suit.

Regular and overtime pay is, therefore, due and owing to Named
Plaintiff and members of the State Class. The Defendants further
violated the PWPCL through their failure to pay the Plaintiff and
members of the State Class all wages due for work they performed
upon their termination of employment, the suit added.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
          Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
          Steve T. Mahan, Esq.
          Michael J. Bradley, Esq.
          WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
          2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
          Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
          Telephone: (717) 238-5707
          Facsimile: (717) 233-8133:
          E-mail: lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
                  dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
                  smahan@weisbergcummings.com
                  mbradley@weisbergcummings.com

HOMESPIRE MORTGAGE: Lewis Sues Over Loan Officers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
IONA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOMESPIRE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a Maryland
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:22-cv-81684-JIC (S.D. Fla., Nov.
1, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid wages,
including statutory minimum wages and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees, as well
as for declaratory and injunctive relief, under the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and for unpaid commissions under
Florida common law.

The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendant as a loan
officer. In this role, Lewis worked for Homespire in the Southern
District of Florida for approximately 19 weeks in 2022, from April
10 to August 27. In her loan officer position, Homespire expressly
classified Lewis for pay purposes as "hourly, non-exempt."

Homespire is a residential mortgage lender, doing business
nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
          PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE LLP
          3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 544-8900
          Facsimile: (561) 544-8999
          E-mail: drl@pbl-law.com

HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Lausche Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jason Lausche, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. HORIZON ACTUARIAL SERVICES,
LLC, and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No. 22STCV28134 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles
County, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Nov. 10, 2022, and assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-08238.

The Plaintiff asserts a claim under the California Consumer Privacy
Act ("CCPA"), seeking actual or statutory damages, injunctive or
declaratory relief, and any other relief the Court deems proper,
including attorneys' fees. The Plaintiff asserts a second claim
under the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), seeking
injunctive relief in the form of an order mandating that Horizon
Actuarial "implement reasonable security measures to protect its
customers' PII; and provide free credit monitoring to customers
affected by the Incident."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew E. Lewitz, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Phone: 213.892.7937
          Fax: 646.461.2082
          Email: mlewitz@cozen.com


HUMPHREYS COUNTY, TN: Hagler Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
WESLEY HAGLER, DANIEL BUCHANAN, JOSEPH BAILEY, BRANDON BOGGES,
VALERIE WILLYERD, and PATSY WILSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HUMPHREYS COUNTY,
TENNESSEE GOVERNMENT, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00879 (M.D.
Tenn., Oct. 31, 2022) seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Tennessee law to recover from Defendant for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid back wages, interest thereon, liquidated
damages, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or
injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.

The complaint arises from the Defendants' failure to include all
statutorily required forms of compensation in the "regular rate"
used to calculate Plaintiffs' overtime compensation and failure to
pay the Plaintiffs all compensation for work performed which is
legally owed to them under the FLSA, Tennessee law, and the terms
and conditions of their employment.

The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of Humphreys County
Government working for the Humphreys County Sheriff's Office
(deputies and jailers).

Humphreys County, Tennessee is a county located in the western part
of the state.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William C. Sessions, III, Esq.
          Frances H. Sessions, Esq.
          SESSIONS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Post Office Box 331
          Brunswick, TN 38014-331
          Telephone: (901) 848-9654
          E-mail: Wsessions@SessionsLawPllc.com
                  BSessions@SessionsLawpllc.com

HUNTSMAN ADVANCED: Irizarry Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose G. Irizarry, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved
employees v. HUNTSMAN ADVANCED MATERIALS AMERICAS, LLC; and DOES 1
to 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV34624 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought against the Defendants'
failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all
overtime hours worked in violation of the Labor Code.

The Defendants' violated of the Labor Code based on the Defendants'
failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all
overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failure to
authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal
periods or pay meal period premium wages; failure to authorize or
permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay
rest period premium wages; statutory penalties for failure to
timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements; statutory waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position
at the Defendants' location in Los Angeles from May 28, 2019, until
February 17, 2022.

HUNTSMAN ADVANCED MATERIALS AMERICAS, LLC is authorized to do
business within the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Danielle Montero, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CS 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                 vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                 dmontero@lelawfirm.com
                 wht2@lelawfirm.com


INJURED WORKERS: D. Mass. Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
On October 18, 2022, in Webb v. Injured Workers Pharmacy, LLC, the
District of Massachusetts dismissed a class action complaint
brought by former pharmacy patients alleging that their sensitive
personal information had been exposed in a data breach affecting
more than 75,000 customers. In its analysis, the court determined
that the named plaintiffs and putative class members could not
satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for constitutional standing.
Plaintiffs Webb and Charley had claimed the breach caused "anxiety,
sleep disruption, stress, and fear" and cost them "considerable
time and effort" monitoring their accounts.

The court rejected these factual allegations as an insufficient
basis to confer constitutional standing under Article III:

The Complaint does not sufficiently allege that the breach caused
any identifiable harm. It is only alleged that Webb and Charley
spent "considerable time and effort" monitoring their accounts and,
in Webb's case, dealing with the IRS. Plaintiffs "cannot
manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based
on … hypothetical future harm." Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568
U.S. 398, 416 (2013). The Complaint alleges neither monetary loss,
the misuse of data, nor that a third party stole their PII.
Plaintiffs' alleged injuries rest entirely on the future
possibility that an unauthorized third party will, at some
undetermined time, misuse their PII. Based on the facts of the
Complaint, this potential harm is not sufficiently threatening to
establish an "injury in fact." Katz, 672 F3.d at 71.

In footnotes, the court noted that Webb had not made a "plausible
connection between the data breach and the filing of the [tax]
return" filed by an unknown and unauthorized third-party and
rejected a theory that plaintiffs were harmed by the loss of their
personal information's "black market value."

The court's decision is especially notable in that it comes on the
heels of the First Circuit's recent decision in Laufer v. Acheson
Hotels LLC, which overturned the dismissal of and thus revived a
class action on standing grounds based on the dignitary harm caused
by website accessibility barriers. As discussed in a prior post on
informational injury, the First Circuit rejected the lower court's
reasoning, holding that "[d]ignitary harm or stigmatic injuries
caused by discrimination have long been held a concrete injury in
fact."

It remains to be seen whether Webb, like Laufer, will make its way
to the First Circuit docket and, if so, how the First Circuit will
apply its recent logic from Laufer to the data breach context. Of
particular interest would be the First Circuit's analysis of the
alleged informational injury that occurred when, according to the
allegations set forth in the complaint, the "Defendant breached its
duties by failing to provide reasonably timely notice of the Data
breach to Plaintiffs and members of the Class." Regardless of
whether an appeal proceeds in Webb, there will certainly be more
occasions for the First Circuit to consider the limits of
constitutional standing in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's
ruling in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. [GN]

INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Navarrete Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darcel Celeste Navarrete, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC dba LA
QUINTA INN & SUITES BY WYNDHAM MADERA, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. MCV087491 was removed
from the Superior Court of the Superior Court for the County of
Madera, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Oct. 31, 2022, and assigned Case No.
1:22-at-00868.

The Complaint asserts class action claims for: failure to pay wages
including overtime as required by Labor Code; failure to pay meal
periods as required by Labor Code; failure to provide rest periods
as required by Labor Code; failure to timely pay wages as required
by Labor Code; failure to timely pay wages during employment
required by Labor Code; failure to provide accurate wage statements
required by Labor Code; failure to reimburse necessary business
expenses required by Labor Code and; violation of Business &
Professions Code section.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Linda Claxton, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          Email: linda.claxton@ogletree.com


ISCO MACHINERY: Faces West Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WEST, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. ISCO MACHINERY, INC.; DAVID
ERLENDSSON; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22STCV34648 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 28, 2022) arises
from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation
of the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to compensate for all
hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay
overtime; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
failure to pay wages when employment ends; failure to pay wages
owed every pay period; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to
provide meal breaks; failure to reimburse business expenses;
discrimination on the basis of physical disability in violation of
the Fair Employment and Housing Act; retaliation; and wrongful
termination.

The Plaintiff started working for ISCO in September 2020 with his
employment ending in April 2022.

ISCO Machinery, Inc. offers heavy equipment rentals for contractors
and government agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818)956-1983
          E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com

JOHN HIESTER: Bid for Summary Judgment in Beard TCPA Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRAM BEARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN HIESTER CHEVROLET, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-CV-173-D (E.D.N.C.), Judge James C. Dever,
III, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Western Division, grants JH Chevrolet's motion for
summary judgment.

On April 14, 2021, Beard filed a putative class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sections 227, et seq.
(TCPA") against JH Chevrolet. On May 12, 2021, Beard amended her
complaint.

When Beard was considering buying a vehicle from JH Chevrolet, she
provided information online and via telephone to JH Chevrolet and
WeBuy, a website that provided information to JH Chevrolet. At the
time, Beard had two cell phone numbers: (1) 919-288-6590 and (2)
919-288-0677.

On Sept. 30, 2020, Beard used the 6590 phone to call JH Chevrolet
and ask about a vehicle. That same day, she made an online inquiry
to JH Chevrolet's website, and supplied her name, email address,
6590 phone number, and other personal information. After providing
her information on the webpage online, Beard clicked to the next
screen of the webpage.

On Oct. 28, 2020, Nov. 24, 2020, and Dec. 22, 2020, Beard received
prerecorded telemarketing voicemails to her 6590 number. The
parties dispute whether these prerecorded voicemails came from
calls or ringless voicemails. On Nov. 18, 2020, Beard called JH
Chevrolet using her 0677 number and left a voicemail. In the
voicemail, she stated, "My number is (919) 288-0677. Do not call
this number. I'm not interested in a car. I have not done business
with y'all. I work a full-time job. My number is (919) 288-65 -
0766." Following this voicemail, JH Chevrolet did not contact the
0677 number.

On April 14, 2021, Beard filed a putative class action under the
TCPA against JH Chevrolet alleging that the prerecorded voicemails
caused injuries, including, "invasion of privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion,"
because the prerecorded voicemails made Beard "stop what she was
doing and listen to the pre-recorded messages" and "occupied her
telephone lines and rendered the devices unavailable for the
receipt of other calls."

On March 30, 2022, JH Chevrolet moved for summary judgment. In its
motion for summary judgment, it argues that ringless voicemails are
not calls under the TCPA, the intangible harms that Beard alleges
are not a "concrete injury" sufficient to support Article III
standing, and even if ringless voicemails are calls and Beard has
standing, Beard provided prior express written consent to be
contacted.

Judge Dever holds that although only a few courts have addressed
whether a ringless voicemail is a call under the TCPA, every court
that has addressed this question has held that a ringless voicemail
is a call under the TCPA. Moreover, other courts have held that
"call" as used in the TCPA means "to communicate with or try to get
into communication with a person by a telephone." And a ringless
voicemail does just that. Furthermore, prerecorded voicemails, text
messages, and calls that directly go to voicemail are subject to
the same TCPA restrictions as traditional calls. And the FCC
proposed a ruling earlier this year declaring ringless voicemails
subject to TCPA prohibition.

In addition, Judge Dever concludes that receiving a ringless
voicemail supports standing under Article DI for a TCPA claim so
long as there is a connection to a traditional common law injury.
As for Beard's allegations, Beard has plausibly alleged "concrete
injury" to support Article III standing. Accordingly, Beard has
standing under Article III to pursue her TCPA claim.

Finally, because Beard clicked the "I agree to" box and the
hyperlinks provided sufficient disclosure, Judge Dever concludes
that Beard provided prior express written consent. And, although
the TCPA does not contain a revocation of consent provision and the
Fourth Circuit has not expressly addressed the issue, courts have
interpreted the common law consent and revocation doctrine to apply
to the TCPA. The parties agree that, if there was prior express
written consent, Beard revoked consent to contact for the 0677
number. Beard does not argue, however, that when she revoked
consent on the 0677 number she also revoked consent on the 6590
number.

In sum, Judge Dever grants the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment and dismisses the action. The Defendant may file a motion
for costs in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Court's local rules. The Clerk will close the case.  
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/59z7fauy from Leagle.com.


JORDAN RESTAURANT: FLSA Class Gets Conditional Status in Hood Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZAK HOOD, v. JORDAN
RESTAURANT GROUP HQ LLC, et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-00486-EAS-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an
order:

   1. certifying under Rule 23 and conditionally certifying
      under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) the following
      class:

      "All individuals who were employed at the restaurant the
      Hen Quarter located in Dublin, Ohio from December 26, 2021
      to present;"

   2. directing the Defendants to provide a class list
      containing each class member's name, home address, and
      email address within 14 days of the date of this Order;

   3. appointing Riley Edward Kane, Andrew P. Kimble, Andy
      Biller, and Emily Anne Hubbard of the law firm Biller &
      Kimble as Class Counsel.

   4. approving the proposed form of notice and authorizing
      Plaintiff to send the notice to the class members via both
      U.S. mail and email.

   5. allowing a 60-day period in which class members may opt-
      out.

   6. directing the Parties to submit a proposed schedule for
      the remainder of the case approximately 30 days following
      the close of the notice period.

This is an action for unpaid wages filed by the Plaintiff Zak Hood
on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, alleging that,
"without warning, the defendants closed the doors to their
restaurant and then did not pay the employees for their last weeks
of work," in violation of the Ohio Revised Code and the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

Jordan Restaurant Group is a minority owned family based company
located in Columbus, Ohio.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3O2mgH4at no extra charge.[CC]

KARMA AND LUCK: Mohr Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily Mohr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KARMA AND LUCK, INC., Case No. 22-005374-CI (Fla. 6th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., Nov. 11, 2022), is brought under
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by engaging in unsolicited
text messaging.

To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
unsolicited text messaging to those who have not provided the
Defendant with their prior express written consent as required by
the FTSA. The Defendant's unwanted telephonic sales calls have
caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations
of their statutory rights, actual liquidated damages, annoyance,
nuisance, and invasion of their privacy Through this action, the
Plaintiff seeks an injunction and damages on behalf of herself and
the Class members and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party."

The Defendant is a foreign corporation and a "telephone
solicitor."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.400.4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301


KIA AMERICA: Alston Sues Over Fraudulent Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Alston and Ayana Hicks, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KIA AMERICA, INC. and HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA CORPORATION, Case No. 2:22-cv-04376 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 1,
2022), is brought on behalf of Classes of similarly situated
persons or entities who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured
and sold by the Defendants (collectively, "Vehicles") against the
Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business
practices.

The Vehicles suffer from a significant defect: they do not include
an engine immobilizer. Engine immobilizers are designed and used to
prevent vehicle theft when a vehicle is left unattended. Engine
immobilizers work by transmitting a code to the vehicle when the
car's key is inserted in the ignition switch or a key fob is inside
the vehicle.

Because Defendants' Vehicles suffer from a defect, thieves are able
to start the Vehicles through the steering column without a car's
specific smart key using a screwdriver, knife, USB charging cord,
or other metal object. Videos are readily available online
providing would-be criminals with a tutorial on how to exploit the
missing immobilizer in the Vehicles. Theft or attempted theft of
Defendants' Vehicles is becoming increasingly reported and has
risen substantially across the United States generally and in
Pennsylvania specifically, as knowledge of the defect is now
widespread.

The Defendants are aware that their Vehicles lack engine
immobilizers. Indeed, immobilizers are required in foreign
countries and installed on similar vehicles that Defendants
manufacture and sell in those countries. Upon information and
belief, Defendants sell other model vehicles in the United States
with engine immobilizers. The Defendants are aware through media
and steering wheel replacement part sales that thefts of the
Vehicles manufactured and sold by them have increased nationwide.
Despite the rise in Vehicle thefts, the Defendants have not issued
a recall or offered to install engine immobilizers in the affected
Vehicles. The Defendants have announced that all Hyundai and Kia
vehicles after November 1, 2021, including the Hyundai Sonata,
which Plaintiffs owned, will come standard with anti-theft
immobilizers.

The Plaintiffs purchased a Vehicle manufactured by Defendants which
suffers from the defect. The Plaintiffs would not have purchased
the Vehicle or would have paid less for the Vehicle had the
Plaintiffs known about the defect. As a result of the Defendants'
unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices, consumers
of the Vehicles, including the Plaintiffs, have suffered an
ascertainable loss, injury-in- fact, and otherwise have been harmed
by the Defendants' conduct, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased a Vehicle manufactured by the Defendants.

The Defendants manufacture and sell motor vehicles in the United
States and Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          Rachel E. Kopp, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-496-0300
          Fax: 215-496-6611
          Email: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
                 jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
                 jspector@srkattorneys.com
                 rkopp@srkattorneys.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          John E. Sindoni, Esq.
          BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 610-822-0200
          Fax: 610-822-0206
          Email: mboni@bonizack.com
                 jsnyder@bonizack.com
                 jsindoni@bonizack.com

               - and -

          David P. McLafferty, Esq.
          MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: 610-940-4000 ext. 12
          Email: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com



KIA AMERICA: Parker Files Suit in D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Laura Parker, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai
Motor America, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-04014-MGL (D.S.C., Nov. 11,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

Kia America, Inc. -- http://www.kiamedia.com/-- provides a wide
range of cars that meet your lifestyle. Browse our luxury or sports
sedans, hybrids, electric cars, SUVs & hatchbacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. Jowers, Jr., Esq.
          JANET JENNER AND SUGGS
          500 Taylor Street, Suite 301
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Phone: (803) 726-0050
          Fax: (803) 727-1059
          Email: gjowers@myadvocates.com

               - and -

          Kenneth M Suggs, Esq.
          JANET JANET AND SUGGS
          801 Gervais Street, Suite B
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Phone: (803) 726-0050
          Fax: (410) 653-9030
          Email: ksuggs@jjsjustice.com


KOOZIE GROUP: Agrees to Settle WARN Class Action for $350,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Ruvo at asicentral.com reports that top 40 supplier
Koozie Group (asi/40480) is a settling a class-action lawsuit that
stems from alleged violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (WARN), but denies any wrongdoing,
court papers show.

Records filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida-Tampa Division indicate that the Clearwater, FL-based
company has agreed to settle for $350,000.

According to the proposed settlement, which awaits final sign-off
from a judge, the money will go into a fund from which
approximately 212 members in the class action - former employees -
will be paid. Records indicate that each member is expected to
receive $988 after attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and the costs
of settlement administration and other necessary payments.  

Despite proceeding to settle the case, Koozie Group asserts that it
did not violate the WARN Act, a labor law that requires most
employers with 100 or more employees to provide 60 calendar-day
advance notification of planned closings and mass layoffs.

Court records show that Koozie Group "specifically denies that it
engaged in any wrongdoing, does not admit or concede any actual or
potential fault, wrongdoing, or liability in connection with any
facts or claims that have been alleged against it in the action,
denies that the claims asserted by named plaintiff are suitable for
class treatment other than for settlement purposes, and denies that
it has any liability whatsoever."

However, court papers continue, Koozie Group "agreed to resolve
this action through settlement because of the substantial expense
of litigation, the length of time necessary to resolve the issues
presented in this case, the inconveniences involved, and the
disruption to its business operations."

ASI Media has reached out to Koozie Group for comment.

Eric Jones, a Koozie Group employee for more than 16 years, was the
named plaintiff in the suit. He alleged that Koozie Group
terminated him and other employees who are part of the class action
without providing sufficient notice as legally required under the
WARN Act.

Jones' complaint asserted that he and other employees were
furloughed on March 26, 2020, but were told they would be brought
back. However, on November 20, 2020, Jones said he and others were
abruptly terminated in violation of the WARN notification
requirement.

According to Jones' complaint, the termination notice also failed
to comply with the WARN Act in other ways. For instance, it didn't
include "whether the planned action is expected to be permanent or
temporary and, if the entire plant is to be closed," the suit
charges. The notice also allegedly didn't have the job titles of
positions to be affected and the names of workers currently holding
the affected jobs, nor the name and address of the employment
site(s) where the mass layoff would occur.

The furloughs occurred as the economic catastrophe of COVID-19
struck; the terminations occurred while the virus and its related
societal restrictions continued to deeply affect business in the
promo industry. Collective industry sales dropped nearly 20% in
2020.

In the court records, Koozie Group maintained it had a variety of
defenses at its disposal, had the case went to trial. These include
exemptions from certain requirements under the "unforeseeable
business circumstance" exception of the WARN Act due to the
COVID-19 economic downturn. Koozie Group felt it could also argue
it did not have an obligation to provide notice due to the WARN
Act's "natural disaster exception" - again, related to COVID
troubles. [GN]

LANE BRYANT: Cole Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
Shania Cole, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. LANE BRYANT, INC., a Delaware
corporation; LANE BRYANT BRANDS OPCO LLC, an Ohio limited liability
company; LANE BRYANT #6243, INC., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22CV403105 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Oct. 31, 2022, and assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-06714.

The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and injunctive relief on
behalf of a putative class for: failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit
rest periods; failure to provide compliant wage statements and
maintain payroll records; failure to timely pay all wages due upon
termination; failure to timely pay all wages due during employment;
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") for
unlawful business practices; and violation of the UCL for unfair
business practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
          David J. Rashe, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
          Phone: +1.714.830.0600
          Fax: +1.714.830.0700
          Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
                 david.rashe@morganlewis.com


LINCARE INC: Deason Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marina Deason, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. LINCARE, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00886 (M.D.
Tenn., Nov. 2, 2022), is brought against the Defendant under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime
compensation owed to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours per
week within weekly pay periods. The Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff all the overtime compensation owed them under the FLSA.
Specifically, the Defendant either "edited-out" time worked or
failed to compensate all the compensable overtime work hours of the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated in a variety of ways, such
as: time worked in pre-shift "off the clock" work, such as
reviewing work-related messages, attending to computer/work
systems' technical issues, "booting-up" and activating work related
computers that were linked to the Defendant's work systems; time
worked receiving work-related training; and; docking $50.00 each
two-week pay period from the earned overtime compensation of the
Plaintiff and those who refused to take the COVID 19 Vaccine. Each
such deduction directly or indirectly reduced the earned overtime
compensation of the Plaintiff below the FLSA required rate of
overtime rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 per week, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly paid
customer service employee.

Lincare, Inc. is a provider of oxygen and other respiratory
services to customers at locations throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com


LOS ANGELES COUNTY DOH: Cortes Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Cortes, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, a Government
Entity, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV26565 was removed
from the Superior Court of the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 3, 2022.

The Complaint purports to assert claims for relief arising out of
the Plaintiff's employment with Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff
brings claims for unpaid wages and overtime compensation.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ronda D. Jamgotchian, Esq.
          Paul Berkowitz, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, California 90067-6017
          Phone: 310-228-3700
          Facsimile: 310-228-3701
          Email: rjamgotchian@sheppardmullin.com
                 pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com


MACY'S.COM LLC: Brito Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Brito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Macy's.com LLC, Case No. 160511476 (Fla. 13th Judicial
Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Nov. 2, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant for the Defendant's violations of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act by engaging in unsolicited telephonic sales
calls.

To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff and
the Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's unlawful
conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal
rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue. Through
this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of the Plaintiff individually and the Class
members and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party."

The Defendant is a consumer goods and services retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
          KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
          2110 West Platt Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: (813) 422–7782
          Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
          Email: ben@theKRfirm.com


MAHENDRA AMIN: Joint Update in Medchoice Suit Due Feb. 1, 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEDCHOICE RISK RETENTION GROUP, INC., Plaintiff v.
MAHENDRA AMIN, M.D., Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-54 (S.D.
Ga.), Magistrate Judge Benjamin W. Cheesbro of the U.S. District
Court for the Sothern District of Georgia, Waycross Division,
directs the parties to submit a joint update in 90 days.

The matter is before the Court on the parties' Joint Status Report.
The case concerns the Plaintiff's duty to defend or indemnify
Defendant in a currently pending class action out of the Middle
District of Georgia -- Oldaker v. Giles, No. 7:20-cv-224 (M.D. Ga.
Feb. 1, 2022). Discovery in the class action has been stayed due to
ongoing Government investigations and potential criminal
proceedings arising from those investigations.

A stay is currently in place for the case. In their most recent
status report, the parties ask for that stay to continue. Given the
representations of the parties, Judge Cheesbro holds that the stay
of all deadlines in the case will remain in place. The joint update
is due on Feb. 1, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ry7rbbvn from Leagle.com.


MDL 1720: Visa's Motion for Summary Judgment in Halycon Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 02, 2021), 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 Halcyon 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.

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/3WTUn8dat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2741: Monsanto Wins Summary Judgment in Tam Roundup Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants summary judgment in favor of Monsanto
in the multidistrict litigation titled IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, This document relates to: Tam v. Monsanto,
20-cv-4216, MDL No. 2741, Case No. 16-md-02741-VC.

Judge Chhabria opines that summary judgment is granted in favor of
Monsanto because the Plaintiff, Wesley Tam, has failed to disclose
a specific causation expert.

Mr. Tam's counsel argues that he doesn't need a specific causation
expert because he "is not seeking redress for having developed
cancer as a result of exposure to Roundup." Rather, if properly
warned, he "would never have purchased, let alone used, Roundup."

To the extent that this theory is about the money he spent on
Roundup, and not medical injuries, Judge Chhabria finds it is
simply not the case described in the complaint.

The complaint alleges that Roundup caused Tam to develop NHL. It
alleges that Roundup caused his teeth to fall out. It alleges that
he "has suffered and continues to suffer grave injuries, and has
endured pain and discomfort, as well as economic hardship,
including considerable financial expenses for medical care and
treatment." Those sorts of toxic tort claims require expert
testimony of specific causation, Judge Chhabria points out.

The complaint states in passing that Tam purchased Roundup
himself.

Judge Chhabria notes it is not clear whether he paid for it with
his own money or was making the purchase on behalf of his employer,
a landscaping company. If he purchased it himself, the new theory
implied by the opposition brief--that he would have paid less for
Roundup had he been warned--may make him a member of the pending
consumer class action in Gilmore v. Monsanto, 21-cv-8159.

But this case is about Tam's alleged medical problems. Any
reasonable lawyer would have known that an expert was required to
prove specific causation, Judge Chhabria holds.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/38buun5e from Leagle.com.


MDL 2873: Odinaev Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
------------------------------------------------------------
ISKANDER ODINAEV 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-03734-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 27, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict
liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.

This suit 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.

The Plaintiff, at all times relevant hereto, was a member of the
U.S. Army, who during his service was stationed at, inter alia,
Elkhorn, a military installation identified as being contaminated
through use of the toxic chemicals which are the subject of this
action. He suffers from testicular cancer, inclusive of undergoing
surgical intervention (orchiectomy). It was discovered that Odinaev
has elevated levels of the subject chemicals in his system, says
the suit.

The Odinaev case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -


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

META PLATFORMS: Bailey Sues Over Intercepted Private Browsing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-05422-JST (N.D.
Cal., Sept. 22, 2022), seeks relief for himself and all others
similarly situated who used Meta Apps and whose private browsing
activity and communications were surreptitiously intercepted,
monitored and recorded by Meta's in-app internet browsers.

After Apple's iOS 14.5 update in April 2021, providers of mobile
phone applications were required to gain their users' informed
consent before tracking their internet activity on apps and
third-party websites. As a result, Meta (which owns Facebook,
Instagram, and Messenger) lost access to its primary stream of
revenue, derived from the user data it obtained from this tracking.
Now, even when users do not consent to being tracked, Meta tracks
users' online activity and communications with external third-party
websites by injecting JavaScript code into those sites. Thus, when
a user clicks on a web link within the Facebook, Instagram, or
Messenger app (collectively, the Meta Apps), Meta automatically
directs them to the in-app browser Meta monitors instead of the
user's default browser. Meta does not inform its users of this or
explain that they are being tracked.

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

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

Meta is amultinational technology conglomerate that owns Facebook,
Instagram, and several other social media platforms, and offers a
wide array of products and services, including advertising and
marketing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: (513) 651-3700
          Fax: (513) 665-0219
          Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com


META PLATFORMS: Does Balk at Illegal Personal Info Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE 1 AND JOHN DOE 2, in their individual capacity and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-06665 (N.D. Cal., Oct.
28, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and
The California Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, Meta collects data through many
mechanisms, one of which is through its "Meta Pixel." Like other
pixels, Meta Pixel is code embedded within a vast number of
websites; indeed, it is believed that the Meta Pixel is embedded
within multiple millions of websites - largely retail and/or
customer service websites - where it has been in use for a decade
or more. Meta Pixel purposefully gathers, unbeknownst to patients
and without permission or authority, protected health information
and individually identifiable health information, says the suit.

This collection of personal health information was received by Meta
and stored for use in selling targeted advertising efforts to
Meta's paying customers. These practices were occurring on and
through the websites and patient portals of healthcare providers
all across the country, including those visited by Plaintiffs, John
Doe 1 and 2, and members of the Class, the suit asserts.

John Doe 1 has an uncommon health diagnosis for which he sought and
received treatment at Novant. His personal health information,
through Meta Pixel's presence in Novant's MyChart system, gathered
John Doe 1's diagnosis information so that targeted advertising
relating to his diagnosis appeared in his Facebook newsfeed.
Plaintiff John Doe 2 is also a Meta platform user and patient of
WakeMed whose personal health information was contained in
WakeMed's patient portal, "MyChart" during the time that Meta Pixel
was embedded within the portal.

Meta Platforms, Inc., doing business as Meta and formerly named
Facebook, Inc., and TheFacebook, Inc., is an American multinational
technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
          Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
          ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
          155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 986-1400
          E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com
                  lori@andrusanderson.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Alison D. Hawthorne, Esq.
          Rachel N. Minder, Esq.
          Rebecca D. Gilliland, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com
                  Alison.Hawthorne@beasleyallen.com
                  Rachel.Minder@beasleyallen.com
                  Rebecca.Gilliland@Beasleyallen.com

MHC HERITAGE: Seeks to Strike Jeffrey Rothbart Expert Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL NOEL, KATHLEEN
WIKSTEN, and CLAIRE LADOUCEUR on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. MHC HERITAGE PLANTATION LLC, EQUITY
LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC., f/k/a MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITIES,
INC., MHC OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MHC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GP
LLC, and MHC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LP, Case No. 2:21-cv-14492-DMM
(S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order:
striking the Expert Report of Jeffrey S. Rothbart filed by the
Plaintiffs in support of their Revised Motion for Class
Certification and Incorporated Memorandum of Law.

Because Mr. Rothbart's report was preliminary and contained no
ultimate conclusions, the Defendants have never been provided the
opportunity to properly challenge his opinions. The Defendants did
not depose Mr. Rothbart because his opinions were not finalized and
they expected to receive a final report with Plaintiffs' October
10, 2022 expert disclosures. It was not until then that Defendants
learned that Mr. Rothbart had been substituted with Mr. Boyle.

Moreover, theg Plaintiffs have represented in their Class
Certification Motion that Mr. Rothbart would be able to calculate
damages on a class-wide basis. However, he never did so and never
will, the Defendants contend.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fj1OoB at no extra
charge.[CC]

Co-Counsel for the Defendants are:

          J. Allen Bobo, Esq.
          LUTZ, BOBO & TELFAIR, P.A
          2 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 500
          Sarasota, FL 34236-5575
          Telephone: (941) 951-1800
          Facsimile: (941) 366-1603
          E-mail: jabobo@lutzbobo.com
                  ahodgins@lutzbobo.com

                - and -

          Mahlon Barlow, Esq.
          SIVYER BARLOW WATSON & HAUGHEY, P.A.
          Truist Place 401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2225
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 221-4242
          Facsimile: (813) 227-8598
          E-mail: mbarlow@sbwhlegal.com
                  mhbassistant@sbwhlegal.com

MICHIGAN: Court Certifies Class of Beneficiaries in D.D. v. MDHHS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, issued an Opinion
and Order granting the Plaintiff's amended motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled D.D., by Next Friend B.N., et
al., Plaintiffs v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
and NICK LYON, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11795 (E.D. Mich.).

Federal law requires the State of Michigan to provide Early and
Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) services to
all Medicaid-eligible children under the age of 21 with reasonable
promptness. The Plaintiffs, seven children receiving Medicaid
benefits for mental-health conditions, allege Michigan is not
providing them home- and community-based services (HCBS) for mental
health with reasonable promptness, if at all. They seek declaratory
and injunctive relief to mandate Michigan's compliance with federal
law.

The case involves Michigan's compliance with the Federal Medicaid
Program, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and procedural due process. Federal
and State governments jointly fund Medicaid under Title XIX of the
Social Security Act. Like all states participating in Medicaid,
Michigan must provide EPSDT services to eligible children under the
age of 21.

Michigan receives Medicaid funds to provide health services. The
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS)
administers Medicaid. To that end, the MDHHS contracts with ten
Prepaid Inpatient Health Plans ("PIHPs") that contract with
Community Mental Health Service Providers that deliver HCBS in
designated geographic regions.

The Plaintiffs are seven Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries under the
age of 21 allegedly injured by the Defendant's failure to provide
the required EPSDT services promptly, if at all.

The Plaintiffs brought this case in June 2018 against the MDHHS,
Nick Lyon, and the Governor of Michigan. The latter has since been
dismissed. The Plaintiffs contend the PIHPs, and thus the MDHHS,
are not fulfilling Medicaid's requirements and, therefore, seek
injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Plaintiffs first filed a six-count complaint. But after a
partially successful motion to dismiss, the remaining claims
include violations of the Federal Medicaid Early and Periodic
Screening Diagnostic and Treatment Mandate (Count I), the ADA
(Count II), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Count III).
The Plaintiffs also allege a violation of the due-process
provisions of the Federal Medicaid Act (Count IV) and Fourteenth
Amendment (Count V).

In August 2020, the parties filed an interim agreement that
outlined their goals, commitments, and expected achievements. The
agreement highlighted the expectation that Michigan would detail
various "implementation plans" for timely and effectively providing
HCBS to eligible children, ensuring the quality and adequacy of the
PIHPs' capacity throughout Michigan, and conducting effective
outreach. The parties amended the agreement in November 2021 to
permit the filing of an amended complaint and a motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiffs seek several reliefs, including a declaratory
judgment that the Defendants have not complied with certain
provisions of the previously mentioned acts.

The Plaintiffs propose that the class includes:

     All Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries under the age of 21 in
     the State of Michigan for whom a licensed practitioner of
     the healing arts acting within the scope of practice under
     state law has determined, through an assessment, that
     intensive [HCBS] are needed to correct or ameliorate their
     emotional, behavioral, or psychiatric condition.

The Defendants "do not object" but reserve the right to challenge
the facts and allegations brought forth in the Plaintiffs' Amended
Motion for Class Certification and to move to de-certify the class
should circumstances warrant it.

Judge Ludington finds that the putative class satisfies Rule
23(a)'s four requirements -- numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequate representation.

Judge Ludington also finds that the proposed class counsel --
Mantese Honigman, P.C., Disability Rights Michigan, the National
Health Law Program, Inc., and John J. Conway P.C. -- are qualified,
experienced, and ready to conduct the litigation.

The class fits within Rule 23(b)(2), Judge Ludington holds. The
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Defendants from withholding medically
necessary HCBS that is required by the Medicaid Act's EPSDT
provisions.

Accordingly, Judge Ludington grants the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion
to Certify. The putative class as defined is certified under Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2).

The Plaintiffs are appointed as class representatives and the
Plaintiffs' counsel, David Honigman, is appointed as class
counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Nov. 3,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2xx28yd5 from
Leagle.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over AI-Based GitHub Copilot
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Marzouk, writing for ITPro, reports that Microsoft's GitHub
Copilot is being sued in a class action lawsuit that claims the
artificial intelligence product is committing software piracy on an
unprecedented scale.

The case was launched on 3 November by Matthew Butterick, a
designer and programmer, along with the Joseph Saveri Law Firm to
investigate GitHub Copilot. The team has filed a class action
lawsuit in the San Francisco federal court on behalf of potentially
millions of GitHub users.

The lawsuit seeks to challenge the legality of GitHub Copilot, as
well as OpenAI Codex which powers the AI tool, and has been filed
against GitHub, its owner Microsoft, and OpenAI.

GitHub and OpenAI launched Copilot in June 2021, an AI-based
product that aims to help software coders by providing or filling
in blocks of code using smart suggestions. It charges users $10 per
month or $100 a year for its service.

"By train­ing their AI sys­tems on pub­lic GitHub
repos­i­to­ries (though based on their pub­lic state­ments,
pos­si­bly much more), we con­tend that the defen­dants have
vio­lated the legal rights of a vast num­ber of cre­ators who
posted code or other work under cer­tain open-source licences on
GitHub," said Butterick.

These licences include a set of 11 popular open source licences
that all require attribution of the author's name and copyright.
This includes the MIT licence, the GNU General Public Licence, and
the Apache licence.

The case claimed that Copilot violates and removes these licences
offered by thousands, possibly millions, of software developers,
and is therefore committing software piracy on an unprecedented
scale.

Copilot, which is entirely run on Microsoft Azure, often simply
reproduces code that can be traced back to open-source repositories
or licensees, according to the lawsuit. The code never contains
attributions to the underlying authors, which is in violation of
the licences.

"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 licences that open-source programmers chose and monetises their
code despite GitHub's pledge never to do so," detailed the
class-action complaint.

Moreover, the case stated that the defendants have also violated
GitHub's own terms of service and privacy policies, the DMCA code
1202 which forbids the removal of copy­right-man­age­ment
infor­ma­tion, and the California Consumer Privacy Act.

"As far as we know, this is the first class-action case in the US
chal­leng­ing the train­ing and out­put of AI sys­tems," said
Butterick. "It will not be the last. AI sys­tems are not exempt
from the law. Those who cre­ate and oper­ate these sys­tems must
remain account­able. If com­pa­nies like Microsoft, GitHub, and
OpenAI choose to dis­re­gard the law, they should not expect that
we the pub­lic will sit still.

"AI needs to be fair and eth­i­cal for every­one. If it's not,
then it can never achieve its vaunted aims of ele­vat­ing
human­ity. It will just become another way for the priv­i­leged
few to profit from the work of the many," he added.

When asked for comment, GitHub highlighted that it had announced on
1 November that it's set to bring in new features to the Copilot
platform in 2023.

Whenever the tool suggests a code fragment, it's hoping to provide
developers with an inventory of similar code found in GitHub public
repositories as well as the ability to organise the inventory by
filters like the commit date, repository licence, and more.

IT Pro has contacted Microsoft and OpenAI for further comment.

In October 2022, developer Tim Davis, professor of computer science
at Texas A&M University, wrote on Twitter that GitHub Copilot had
emitted large chunks of his copyrighted code, with no attribution
to him.

Davis added that he could probably reproduce his entire sparse
matrix libraries from simple prompts, aiming to underline the
similarity between his work and what the AI tool produced.

"The code in question is different from the example given. Similar,
but different. If you can find a way to automatically identify one
as being derivative of the other, patent it," responded Alex
Graverly on Twitter, creator of GitHub Copilot.

This comes at a time when Microsoft is looking at developing
Copilot technology for use in similar programmes for other job
categories, like office work, cyber security, or video game design,
according to a Bloomberg report.

Microsoft's chief technology officer revealed that the tech giant
will build some of the tools itself, while others will be provided
by its customers, partners, and rivals.

Examples of what the technology could do include helping video game
creators make dialogue for non-playable characters, while the tech
giant's cyber security teams are investigating how the tool can
help combat hackers.

GitHub did admit that in some cases Copilot can produce copied
code, with the current version of the tool aiming to prevent
suggestions that match existing code in public repositories. [GN]

MID-SOUTH ADJUSTMENT: Certification of Class in Smith Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MID-SOUTH ADJUSTMENT CO., INC., Appellant v.
BRITTANY SMITH, ON BEHALF OF FOX, HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Appellee, Case No. CV-22-43 (Ark.), the Supreme Court of
Arkansas affirms the circuit court's class-action certification
order.

In March 2012, Smith leased a residence in Jacksonville, Arkansas,
and applied to Jacksonville Water Works for water service. About a
year later, Smith moved, and Jacksonville Water Works issued a
final bill for $26.49. Because Smith did not pay that bill, her
account entered default.

Over four years later, in December 2017, Mid-South, a third-party
debt-collection agency, sent Smith a collection letter on behalf of
Jacksonville Water Works for her outstanding balance. Smith filed
the class action alleging Mid-South violated provisions of the
Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Act) when attempting
to collect debt on behalf of Jacksonville Water Works.

Ms. Smith alleges that Mid-South attempted to collect a debt that
was time-barred under the three-year statute-of-limitations period
for unwritten contracts. If true, Smith contended Mid-South's
notice violated several sections of the Act, including its
prohibition on false, deceptive, or misleading representation or
means in connection with the collection of a debt and unfair or
unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt.
Later, Smith sought class certification.

The circuit court certified the class action and defined the class
as follows:

     All individuals in Arkansas to whom Defendant sent a
     letter which (1) identified Jacksonville Water Works as a
     Client; (ii) sought to collect a debt on which the
     last payment was made more than three years prior to the
     letter; and (iii) which was sent on or after
     December 2, 2017.

Mid-South filed this interlocutory appeal from the circuit court's
order granting class certification.

Mid-South alleges the class definition is unworkable because it
requires individualized inquiry into when each potential member
made their last payment and when the statute-of-limitations period
expired. Mid-South also argues that the circuit court erroneously
found that a class action is a superior method for adjudication.
Finally, Mid-South claims that Brittany Smith is inadequate as
class representative and that she did not timely seek class
certification.

Associate Justice Rhonda K. Wood, writing for the Panel, finds that
this class membership has objective criteria, and the dates are
ascertainable.

Mid-South's argument about the applicable statute-of-limitations
period concerns the merits and the eventual ruling on whether the
debt involved a written contract. But that issue, which is not
before the Supreme Court, does not impair the objectiveness of the
criteria, Judge Wood opines. Finally, Mid-South's argument that
Jacksonville Water Works controls the records implicates discovery
and falls outside the Supreme Court's Rule 23 review. That is
within the scope of the circuit court's control, Judge Wood says.

Mid-South argues that a class action is not superior because class
members may obtain a greater recovery in individual actions. The
Supreme Court rejects this argument because the class members'
award is, at this stage, speculative. Judge Wood holds that
class-action adjudication is both fair and efficient. It would not
be cost effective or judicially efficient for each class member to
file separate lawsuits, nor would it be convenient for Mid-South to
defend multiple claims under this Act.

Judge Wood, therefore, concludes that the circuit court did not err
in finding that the class action is the superior method.

Mid-South also argues Brittany Smith is not an adequate class
representative. Mid-South's argument centers on Smith's conduct at
her deposition. It alleges Smith lacks familiarity with the facts
of the case because she initially testified that she thought she
was appearing in a different lawsuit and because she believed the
lawsuit arose from a credit-reporting law, not the Act. It adds
that Smith was evasive and took frequent breaks during the
deposition.

Despite the foregoing, the Supreme Court affirms because the
circuit court did not abuse its discretion. At her deposition, when
asked what her claims were in this lawsuit, Smith responded "that
the debt was too old to be collected." In sum, Smith expressed that
she is familiar with the practices challenged and can assist
counsel make litigation decisions. Therefore, the Supreme Court
also affirms on this point.

Finally, Mid-South argues that Smith failed to timely seek
certification of a class. The Plaintiff filed her motion for class
certification about 18 months after her amended complaint.

The Supreme Court does not find this amount of time unreasonable
based on the progression of the action in the record. To the extent
Mid-South also argues on appeal that the circuit court failed to
timely rule on the motion to certify the class, that was not argued
to the circuit court. As it was not preserved, the Supreme Court
does not consider it on appeal.

Affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 3, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5ecy9hup from Leagle.com.

Clarke Tucker Law, PLLC, by: Clarke Tucker --
clarke@clarketuckerlaw.com -- for the Appellant.

Corey D. McGaha PLLC, by: Corey D. McGaha -- cmcgaha@mcgahalaw.com
-- and Turner and Turner, P.A. by: Todd M. Turner and Dan O.
Turner, for the Appellee.


MINDBODY INC: Ct. Awards $2.9M to Lead Attorneys in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: MINDBODY, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-08331-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Valerie Caproni entered an order that:

   -- The form and method of notifying the Settlement Class of
      the motion for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of
      expenses satisfied the notice requirements of Rule 23 of
      the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States
      Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), and
      Section 21D(a)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      15 U.S.C. section78u-4(a)(7), as amended by the Private
      Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995; constituted the
      best notice practicable under the circumstances; and
      constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all
      Persons entitled thereto.

   -- There have been no objections to Lead Counsel's request
      for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses.

   -- 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;

   -- 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 hereby 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.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Xc2WLZat no extra charge.[CC]

MMFC LLC: Corado Sues Over Failure to Pay Legally Mandated Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mariela Campos Corado, Patricia de Romero, Maria Ayala, and
Jackeline Chavez individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MMFC LLC, RITU GOEL a/k/a RITU MACIAS, and SUMEET GOEL,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02780-ADC (D. Md., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought
against Defendants for failing to pay their legally mandated wages
and seek their unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"), and Maryland common
law.

The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs any overtime wages for
the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week. Even after the
Defendants started paying the Plaintiffs an overtime premium for
their overtime hours in late May 2021, the premium was less than
1.5 times their regular rate. In addition, the Defendants made
unlawful deductions from the wages of the Plaintiffs for traffic
and parking tickets, uniforms, and other expenses, without the
prior written consent of the Plaintiffs, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by MMFC LLC when it purchased the
Franchise.

The Defendants have owned and operated a franchise of the national
maid service chain, Molly Maid, since March 2020.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Monisha Cherayil, Esq.
          David Rodwin, Esq.
          The Public Justice Center
          201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Phone: (410) 625-9409
          Fax: (410) 625-9423
          Email: cherayilm@publicjustice.org
                 rodwind@publicjustice.org


MW MANUFACTUERS: Bryant Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bryant and Devin Cassel, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. MW MANUFACTURERS INC., Case No.
7:22-cv-00615-TTC (W.D. Va., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Virginia Wage Payment
Act and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, minimum wages and other damages owed to the
Plaintiffs.

The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiffs at
the appropriate overtime rates of pay for all hours worked over 40
per week. The Defendant also violated the FLSA by failing to pay
the Plaintiffs the federally mandated minimum wage rate of $7.25
per hour for all hours worked. The Defendant violated the VWPA for
failing to pay the Plaintiffs the Virginia minimum wage of $11 per
hour for each hour worked as of January 1, 2022, $9.50 per hour for
each hour worked from May 1, 2021 until January 1, 2022 and other
damages owed to the Plaintiffs for failure to pay at the
appropriate overtime rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 per
week pursuant to the VOWA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as hourly-paid production
associate employees.

MW Manufacturers Inc. is a business engaged in the manufacture of
windows and doors with a location in Rocky Mount Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Johneal Moore White, Esq.
          GLENN ROBINSON CATHEY MEMMER & SKAFF, PLC
          400 Salem Avenue, S.W., Suite 100
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Phone: 540-767-2206
          Fax: 767-2220
          Email: jwhite@glennrob.com


NATIONAL SECURITIES: Court Issues Final Judgment in Ginzkey Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued a Final Judgment
and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice in the lawsuit captioned
JAMES GINZKEY, RICHARD FITZGERALD, CHARLES CERF, BARRY DONNER, and
on behalf of the class members, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL SECURITIES
CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-1773-RSM (W.D. Wash.).

The matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the
Preliminary Approval Order dated June 7, 2022, on the application
of the Parties for approval of the Settlement set forth in the
Settlement Agreement of Settlement dated June 2, 2022.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court approves the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement
and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and that the Settlement set
forth in the Settlement Agreement is finally approved in all
respects, and the Parties are directed to perform its terms.

Accordingly, the Court authorizes and directs implementation of the
terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, as well as the
terms and provisions thereof. It dismisses with prejudice and
without costs, the Action and all claims contained therein, and the
Released Claims, defined in the Settlement Agreement as any and all
claims, demands, and causes of action by Class Members that either
were raised in the Complaint or that could have been raised in the
Complaint, an individual arbitration, or any other legal
proceeding, and that relate in any way to, arise from, or have any
connection with the Beamreach Offerings. Notwithstanding the
aforementioned, claims relating to the enforcement of the
Settlement will not be released.

The Settlement Administrator will maintain the Settlement Fund in
accordance with the requirements set forth in the Settlement
Agreement. The Defendant and the Released Parties will have no
liability, obligation, or responsibility whatsoever for the
administration of the Settlement or disbursement of the Net
Settlement Fund.

Separate orders will be entered regarding the Class Counsel's
motion for attorneys' fees and expenses as allowed by the Court.
Any order entered regarding any attorneys' fee and expense
application will in no way disturb or affect this Order and Final
Judgment and will be considered separate from this Order and Final
Judgment.

Without affecting the finality of this Order and Final Judgment in
any way, the Court retains continuing exclusive jurisdiction over:
(a) implementation of this Settlement and any award or distribution
of the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon; (b)
disposition of the Settlement Fund; (c) hearing and determining
applications for attorneys' fees and expenses and interest in the
Action; and (d) the Parties hereto for the purpose of construing,
enforcing, and administering the Settlement Agreement.

The Court finds that during the course of the Action, the Parties
and their respective counsel at all times complied with the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

In the event that the Settlement does not become effective in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, or the
Effective Date does not occur, or in the event that the Settlement
Fund, or any portion thereof, is returned to the Defendants as
required under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, then this
Order and Final Judgment will be rendered null and void to the
extent provided by and in accordance with the Settlement Agreement
and will be vacated and, in such event, all orders entered and
releases delivered in connection herewith will be null and void to
the extent provided by and in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement.

Without further approval from the Court, the Parties are authorized
to agree and to adopt such amendments or modifications of the
Settlement Agreement or any exhibits attached thereto to effectuate
the Settlement that: (i) are not materially inconsistent with this
Order and Final Judgment; and (ii) do not materially limit the
rights of Class Members in connection with the Settlement. Without
further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to reasonable
extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal dated Nov. 3, 2022, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4x9sf7s5 from Leagle.com.


NATIONAL SECURITIES: Ginzkey's Counsel Awarded $1.86-Mil. in Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards
in the lawsuit entitled JAMES GINZKEY, RICHARD FITZGERALD, CHARLES
CERF, BARRY DONNER, and on behalf of the class members, Plaintiffs
v. NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. C18-1773RSM (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiffs seek a total of 40% of the cash fund in attorneys'
fees ($1.86 million), $86,612.69 in expenses, and $10,000 for each
of the four class representatives, all to come out of the cash fund
awarded in this case. The Plaintiffs request that American Legal
Claim Services fees for settlement notice and distribution be paid
from the cash proceeds in the amount of $13,370.41.

The Ninth Circuit typically weighs five factors in determining what
constitutes a reasonable award under the percentage-of-recovery
method: (1) the results achieved; (2) the risk of litigation; (3)
the skill required and the quality of work; (4) the contingent
nature of the fee and the financial burden; and (5) awards made in
similar cases.

The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that, considering these
factors, the record, and the arguments at the fairness hearing, the
requested fee award of 40% of the Settlement Fund is reasonable.
This was a hard-fought case with no guarantee of success. The
result is a good one for these investors considering the outcomes
of similar cases. The Plaintiffs' attorneys took this case on a
contingent basis and fronted the expenses. The Court is also
persuaded by the lack of objections from the class, which consists
of relatively sophisticated investors.

Having considered the briefing from the parties and the remainder
of the record, the Court finds and orders that the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards
is granted. The Plaintiffs' counsel are to be paid 40% of the cash
fund in attorneys' fees ($1.86 million), $86,612.69 in expenses,
and are to provide $10,000 for each of the four class
representatives, all to come out of the cash fund awarded in this
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2457jnby from Leagle.com.


NATIONAL SPINE: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Scoma TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John L. Badalamenti of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, denies the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment and the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit titled SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a
Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL SPINE
AND PAIN CENTERS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, SPINE
CENTER OF FL, LLC, and PAIN MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA, P.L., Florida limited liability companies, Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-430-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla.).

The lawsuit is a junk fax case brought pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (the "TCPA"). This
Court previously granted the Plaintiff authorization to subpoena
third-party phone carriers under the Cable Communications Policy
Act of 1984 (the "Cable Act") to identify individuals, who received
faxes sent by the Defendants on stand-alone fax machines.

With the subpoena process completed, Scoma moves for class
certification. The Defendants have responded in opposition and move
for summary judgment, contending that the junk fax provision of the
TCPA violates the First Amendment. Scoma and the United States have
responded that the provision is not unconstitutional.

Scoma is a Florida entity that provides chiropractic treatment.
Pain Management Consultants of Southwest Florida, P.L. ("PMC") is a
pain management practice that is affiliated with National Spine and
Pain Centers LLC ("NSPC") and operated by Spine Center of Florida,
LLC. PMC obtained Scoma's fax number when Scoma faxed medical
records so PMC could provide medical care to a patient.

In April and June 2020, amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, PMC sent
certain medical providers a fax encouraging telemedicine
appointments to help to ensure patients don't end up in
overburdened Emergency Rooms, where the risk of contracting
coronavirus will surely be higher. That fax stated that PMC was
making telemedicine immediately available to its affiliated
providers and their patients. By Scoma's count, 16,227 faxes were
sent to 8,147 unique fax numbers over 18 separate broadcasts.

Scoma received the fax on a stand-alone fax machine. Scoma
allegedly did not give the Defendants "prior express invitation or
permission" to send the "unsolicited fax," which did not "display
an opt-out notice at all as required" by the TCPA. In response to
the fax, Scoma filed a class action complaint against the
Defendants for violating the TCPA.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the
fax was not an unsolicited "advertisement" under the TCPA and that
the TCPA's junk fax provision violates the First Amendment. The
Court denied the motion, finding that Scoma had adequately alleged
at the pleading stage that the fax constituted an unsolicited
advertisement. The Court further declined to resolve the First
Amendment challenge and permitted the Defendants to renew the
argument and address additional issues identified by the Court at
the summary judgment stage.

Following the denial of the motion to dismiss, Scoma obtained
authorization to subpoena third-party phone carriers under the
Cable Act to identify individuals, who received the faxes at issue
via stand-alone fax machines instead of an online fax service. This
distinction is significant because the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau (the "Bureau"), acting on delegated authority from
the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), has determined that
the TCPA does not apply to faxes received via online fax services
(In the Matter of AmeriFactors Fin. Grp., LLC Petition for
Expedited Declaratory Ruling, 34 F.C.C. Rcd. 11950 (2019)).

Accordingly, Scoma proposed--and the Court approved--a three-step
process: 1. Subpoena the Local Number Portability Administrator of
the Number Portability Administrative Center to identify the
carriers of the recipient numbers; 2. Subpoena the identified phone
carriers and determine whether the subscriber of each number was
using online fax services on the date of the faxing in the class
definition; and 3. Provide this Court with the option to exclude
all telephone numbers where the subscriber was using online fax
services.

The subpoenas would authorize the phone carriers of each number to
disclose: (1) whether the carrier provided online fax services to
the subscriber, and (2) the name and address of the subscriber.

Evidently, this process has been more or less completed, though the
parties dispute its results. In any event, pursuant to Rule 23(a)
and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Scoma
now moves to certify "Class A":

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a fax, on
     or about April 2, 2020, April 16, 2020, April 21, 2020, and
     June 9, 2020, that states: In-Office and Telemedicine
     Appointments for Pain Available![] or Dedicated Physician
     Hotline for Pain Management Referrals.

Alternatively, "if the Court finds it necessary to distinguish
between faxes successfully sent to 'stand-alone' fax machines
versus faxes that were successfully sent to an 'online fax
service,'" the Plaintiff seeks certification of "Class B":

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a fax to
     their stand-alone fax machine, on or about on or about [sic]
     April 2, 2020, April 16, 2020, April 21, 2020, and June 9,
     2020, that states: In-Office and Telemedicine Appointments
     for Pain Available![] or Dedicated Physician Hotline for
     Pain Management Referrals.

The Defendants oppose certification of either class. They also move
for summary judgment on Scoma's TCPA claim, again contending that
section 227(b)(1)(C) of the TCPA is unconstitutional because it
violates the First Amendment. Scoma has responded in opposition.
The United States has intervened in this action to file a Brief
Supporting the Constitutionality of 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(C).
The Defendants filed a consolidated reply as to both responses.

             Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Because class certification would be inappropriate if the Court
were to find section 227(b)(1)(C) unconstitutional, the Court first
addresses the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Put simply,
the Court agrees with nearly every court to decide the issue:
Intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment applies, and
section 227(b)(1)(C) passes intermediate scrutiny.

Next, as to class certification, the Court finds that even if Scoma
has established that its proposed classes satisfy Rule 23(a)'s
prerequisites, Scoma has not satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance
or superiority prongs as to either class. Thus, class certification
is inappropriate.

As an initial matter, the United States argues that before
addressing the Defendants' constitutional challenge to the TCPA,
the Court must first resolve "two nonconstitutional issues": (1)
whether the Defendants' fax constitutes an "unsolicited
advertisement"; and (2) whether the Defendants had an established
business relationship with Scoma. The United States further asserts
that this is true even if the Defendants concede these issues,
because courts are not bound to decide a matter of constitutional
law based on a concession by the particular party before the Court
as to the proper legal characterization of the facts. Neither Scoma
nor the Defendants address these contentions.

Even assuming the Court must first resolve these two
nonconstitutional questions, their resolution would not allow the
Court to avoid answering the constitutional question presented.
Despite its assertions, Judge Badalamenti notes that the United
States provides no authority to support its contention that the
Court must conclusively determine, at this stage in litigation,
that the Defendants are "liable" for violating the TCPA. In short,
Judge Badalamenti points out, the nonconstitutionally-based
questions identified by the United States do not present a basis to
avoid resolving the Defendants' challenge to the constitutionality
of section 227(b)(1)(C).

In summary, Judge Badalamenti opines, because section 227(b)(1)(C)
directly advances Congress's substantial interest in protecting
individuals from the privacy intrusion and costs of junk faxes and
is not more extensive than necessary, section 227(b)(1)(C) survives
intermediate scrutiny and, therefore, does not violate the First
Amendment. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
is due to be denied.

The Court agrees with several other courts in finding that receipt
of a fax via an online fax service, as opposed to a stand-alone fax
machine, does not support a TCPA claim. The Court finds that the
TCPA does not cover receipt of a fax via an online fax service.

           Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification

Judge Badalamenti holds that even assuming Scoma has met Rule
23(a)'s prerequisites, it has not satisfied Rule 23(b)(3) as to
Class A.

As to Class A, Judge Badalamenti opines that although the members'
claims relate to similar fax transmissions, the common issues do
not predominate because individualized inquiries would be required
to determine whether each member received a fax via a stand-alone
machine or online fax service. These inquiries would be necessary
for two independent reasons: (1) as a threshold question of whether
each member has Article III standing; and (2) because only those
who received a fax via a stand-alone machine could potentially have
a valid TCPA claim, and thus the element of receipt on a "telephone
facsimile machine" would not be subject to classwide proof.

Although ultimately unnecessary to support a finding that
certification is inappropriate, the Court is also troubled by
apparent flaws in the class-wide evidence set forth by Scoma. For
example, Scoma's expert analyzed two different sets of log files
compiling the same faxes. One analysis resulted in a 99.9%
completion rate, and another analysis resulted in a completion rate
of 71.4%. The expert acknowledged that he had "no ability to test"
the reliability of these records and that he did not contact
InterFAX, the entity that transmitted the faxes.

In summary, these complex individualized inquiries would dwarf the
common issues among the class, Judge Badalamenti holds.
Accordingly, Scoma has not established predominance as to Class A.
Nor has Scoma established that a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy.

Because Scoma has not satisfied the predominance and superiority
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), certification of Class A is
inappropriate, Judge Badalamenti holds.

Even assuming Scoma has met Rule 23(a)'s prerequisites as to Class
B, Judge Badalamenti finds it has not established predominance and
superiority.

The putative members of Class B (and for that matter, Class A) are
ascertainable in the sense that the class is defined by objective
criteria, Judge Badalamenti opines. However, as it relates to Rule
23(b)(3)(D)'s manageability factor, administrative feasibility--or
the lack thereof--gives the Court pause. Judge Badalamenti finds
that Scoma has failed to show that its subpoena process resolves
this difficulty.

Judge Badalamenti holds that Scoma has failed to establish that,
through its own proposed subpoena process, it is administratively
feasible to identify users of stand-alone fax machines. With this
little to go on, any other process, such as subpoenas directed at
the more than eight thousand fax recipients, is unworkable or
administratively infeasible--and, in all events, not adequately
outlined in Scoma's motion or even reply.

In summary, upon applying Rule 23(b)(3) and mindful of the
applicable burden of proof, the Court determines that certification
of either Class A or Class B is inappropriate. To be sure, the
Court acknowledges that, against the backdrop of Cherry v. Dometic
Corp., 986 F.3d 1296, 1302-04 (11th Cir. 2021), this may be a
closer call, but the entire point of a burden of proof is that, if
doubts remain about whether the standard is satisfied, the party
with the burden of proof loses.

Therefore, the Court rules that the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment and the Plaintiff's motion for class certification are
denied. The Defendants' request for oral argument on the motion for
class certification is also denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/59drrxc8 from Leagle.com.


NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Deceptive Boost Glucose Control Drinks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick J. McNamara, Esq., of Scarinci Hollenbeck LLC, in an
article for Mondaq, reports that Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc.
(Nestle) is facing a class-action lawsuit over claims that its
Boost Glucose Control drinks help diabetic consumers manage their
blood sugar levels. The case, Owen v. Nestle Healthcare Nutrition,
Inc., was filed in New Jersey District Court. The suit alleges that
Nestle makes druglike claims about the drinks, which have not been
tested or approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and
that the products mislead consumers into believing that the drinks
help control blood glucose levels when in fact Nestle's own study
revealed they do not.

False Advertising Allegations Against Nestle
Plaintiff Steven Owen's lawsuit involves Nestle's BOOST-brand
Glucose Control over-the-counter drinks with the name "Glucose
Control." As described in his complaint, the products are labeled
"Glucose Control" and prominently state in bold, capitalized font
that they "HELP MANAGE BLOOD SUGAR" and/or that they are "DESIGNED
FOR PEOPLE WITH DIABETES."

Plaintiff, a diagnosed diabetic, purchased a 24-pack of BOOST
Glucose Control in or around April 2022 from Amazon for $38.99. He
claims that the products did not "control" his Glucose or "manage
his blood sugar" as he expected it would in light of the product's
labeling. "Defendant's prominent and systematic mislabeling of the
Products and its false and deceptive advertising form a pattern of
unlawful and unfair business practices that harms the public and,
if unstopped, could continue to lead to substantial harm," his
complaint states. His proposed class-action suit includes claims
for breach of warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust
enrichment, and violations of New Jersey consumer protection laws.

In his complaint, Owens specifically maintains that Nestle's Boost
products make unproven health claims. "Critically, Nestle's
marketing and labeling are tantamount to express and/or implied
disease claims relating to the prevention and control of diabetes,"
the suit alleges. "Such claims made on dietary supplements are
prohibited as a matter of law and further render the claims
misleading and deceptive."

Under 21 C.F.R. Section 101.14(a)(1), a health claim is "any claim
made on the label or in labeling of a food, including a dietary
supplement, that expressly or by implication . . . characterizes
the relationship of any substance to a disease or health-related
condition." Thus, claims on food labels are governed by FDA's
health claims regulations if they include either express or implied
references to both a substance and a disease. Pursuant to 21 C.F.R.
Section 101.14(e), health claims may not be made unless such claims
are expressly reviewed and preauthorized by the FDA. A product that
makes unauthorized health claims is considered misbranded pursuant
to 21 U.S.C. Section 343(r).

In his complaint, Owens contends that consumers could understand
Nestle's representations to mean that they can use the products to
effectively control glucose levels and manage blood sugar. For
instance, he alleges that the name of the Product, "BOOST Glucose
Control," is an implicit or express health claim because it
purports to control a health-related condition, namely the
inability to control glucose. He further maintains that Nestle's
statement that the products are "DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE WITH DIABETES"
is an implicit or expressed health claim because it denotes a
relationship between the drink and diabetes.

Owens' complaint further alleges that Nestle's product deceptively
represents that they control and manage glucose. "Representations
that the products control glucose and 'help manage blood sugar'
conveys to the consumer that the products affirmatively do
something to control blood sugar: that whatever one's blood glucose
is at the time they take the products, drinking the products will
make it better," the complaint states. "But this is false, as
demonstrated by the clinical study that Nestle discusses on a part
of its website."

According to the complaint, Nestle's own clinical trial found that
the products were associated with a lesser rise in glucose levels
as compared to a standard nutritional drink in people with type 2
diabetes. However, they did not show that they controlled blood
sugar. "Shockingly, the Products do not control glucose at all, but
rather only produce a slightly favorable response to glucose levels
as compared to one other unidentified product," the complaint
states.

Key Takeaway
Given the rise in lawsuits alleging false advertising and
mislabeling, food and drink manufacturers must be particularly
cautious when making statements that may be construed as "health
claims." Such claims are highly regulated by the FDA and must meet
stringent legal requirements. To avoid unintended liability, we
encourage manufacturers to consult with experienced counsel. [GN]

NEW SOUTH WALES: Sued Over Sydney Light Rail Project Works
----------------------------------------------------------
Harriet Tatham, writing for ABC News, reports that up to 300 people
have joined a lawsuit claiming the construction of Sydney's light
rail project was a "train wreck" which "decimated" local
businesses, a court has heard.

A group of retailers and residents allege they suffered
"unreasonable interference" from the works between the CBD,
Randwick and Kingsford, and are suing Transport for NSW in a class
action.

The court heard that about 300 people had joined the class action
but thousands more were still eligible to join.

Their barrister, Tony Bannon SC, told the NSW Supreme Court the
project was "a train wreck that would be predicted a mile away".

He said businesses were "decimated" due to "the overstay of the
project" with inadequate mitigation attempts by the state
government.

"It's inconceivable the state would choose to block the roads for
three years," Mr Bannon said.

The group's claim alleges that the construction was a "nuisance"
that caused "substantial and unreasonable interference" resulting
in economic loss and psychological suffering.

While Mr Bannon told the court Transport for NSW would deny any
interference occurred, counsel for the government is yet to respond
or give their opening statements.

Mr Bannon told the court on Nov. 7 that businesses in several zones
were advised the construction would last months.

After work began in 2015, completion deadlines were repeatedly
extended -- with the final section of the network opening in April
2020.

This, he claimed, alongside the impact of dust and noise, forbid
businesses from enjoying the "location," "visibility" and "parking"
that was an expectation of these locations.

"Instead, they had three years of a construction zone," Mr Bannon
stated.

Financial documents from luxury handbag store, Hunt Leather, were
shown to the court.

The business, based in the Strand Arcade, experienced a "dramatic
downtown" in average monthly sales when the construction began, Mr
Bannon said.

"They went from $400,00 to mid-2015, to $100,00 the next year... in
approximate terms?" Justice Richard Cavanagh asked.

"Yes," Mr Bannon responded.

"When construction commenced the whole baseline shifted
downwards."

Outside court, an emotional Angela Vithoulkas addressed the media
on what she described as a "horrible day".

She said she represented one of the "hundreds" whose business
closed down, with her forced to question "how we were going to keep
a roof over the heads of our families, and food on the table".

"There are hundreds of members of the class, but there are
thousands of people eligible to be part of the class, who are
welcome to join any time and make the state government... pay for
what they have done," she said.

Mr Bannon indicated he would object to any potential argument that
the "interference" associated with the light rail was for "public
benefit".

"This doesn't fall into the category of building next door," he
said, arguing the duration exceeded what was "normal" or
"reasonable".

The hearing was adjourned with the state government expected to
deliver its opening statement on Nov. 8.

The government has already been in court over this project, when
construction company Acciona successfully sued the state for
misleading or deceptive conduct in 2018.

Acciona sought compensation over issues relating to the cost of
digging up and replacing Ausgrid powerlines for the project.

The payout took the project's total cost to more than $3 billion --
almost double the original price tag predicted by then-transport
minister Gladys Berejiklian in 2012. [GN]

NISOURCE INC: Hardy Sues Over Welding Inspectors' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA HARDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NISOURCE INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00322 (N.D. Ind., Oct. 31, 2022) seeks to recover
Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wage
and Hour Act.

Mr. Hardy worked for NiSource as a welding inspector through its
brand NIPSCO from July 2019 to December 2019 in Warsaw, Indiana and
again from May 2020 to October 2020 in La Porte, Indiana. He
asserts that instead of paying overtime for all hours worked over
40 in a single week as required by the FLSA and KWHA, NiSource paid
him and other workers a daily rate without time and a half for all
the hours worked over 40 in a single week.

NiSource is one of the largest utility companies in the United
States, serving approximately four million natural gas and electric
customers nationwide through its Columbia Gas and NIPSCO
brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.  
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065   
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

NISSAN MOTOR: Defective Front Floors' Suit Settlement Gets Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Nissan
class action lawsuit has been granted final approval after a Nissan
Altima owner claimed her floorboard rusted 12 years after
purchasing the car.

The Nissan class action lawsuit alleges 2002-2006 Nissan Altima and
2004-2008 Nissan Maxima cars in Missouri have defective front floor
pans that prematurely rust and damage the vehicles.

The lawsuit alleges Nissan built the Altimas and Maximas with
defective front floor pans that allowed moisture to become trapped
in the floorboards.

That rust allegedly made the Nissan vehicles dangerous to drive,
with some owners complaining about seeing through the floorboards
because they are so corroded.

The Nissan class action lawsuit settlement includes these Missouri
customers:

"All persons in Missouri who (1) currently own or lease a Class
Vehicle, or (2) who previously owned or leased a Class Vehicle and
paid for repairs to rust in a front floor pan of a Class Vehicle.
Class Vehicles include model years 2002-2006 Nissan Altimas and
model years 2004-2008 Nissan Maximas. Class Vehicles must either be
currently registered in Missouri, or previously have been
registered in Missouri at the time the Settlement Class Member paid
to repair corrosion on a front floor pan."

The Nissan class action lawsuit began as a nationwide action for
several claims including unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express warranty and violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act. However, by the end the case was limited to an
alleged violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act.

Nissan argued the owner who filed the class action lawsuit drove
her Altima for 12 years before she complained to Nissan about
floorboard rust. Then when Nissan wouldn't pay for repairs since
the warranty expired seven years before she complained, the owner
filed the class action.

According to Nissan, it denies all allegations in the lawsuit.

Nissan Floor Rust Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
For one year beginning September 30, 2022, a Missouri 2002-2006
Nissan Altima or 2004-2008 Nissan Maxima owner may take their car
to a Missouri Nissan dealership to inspect for floorboard rust and
corrosion.

According to the Nissan rusted floorboard lawsuit settlement:

"Nissan shall repair any Class Vehicle of a Settlement Class Member
that presents with front floor plan corrosion free of charge to the
Settlement Class Member. The repair shall be consistent with the
Repair Plate format, as provided in Nissan's Technical Service
Bulletin [TSB NTB15-059] dated July 6, 2015."

The settlement agreement says Nissan isn't responsible for
repairing any undercarriage corrosion found by the dealership other
than "floor pan corrosion." And the Nissan Altima or Nissan Maxima
customer won't be charged for the inspection.

The Nissan class action lawsuit settlement also provides a rental
vehicle for up to five days if a dealer must repair floor pan
rust.

A Nissan customer may receive 100% reimbursement for repairs
performed by Nissan dealerships, and reimbursement is capped at
$5,000 for floorboard rust repairs at a non-Nissan dealer.

Nissan customers will be required to provide proof of floor rust
repair expenses or else reimbursement is limited to $300.

The Nissan owner who filed the rusted floorboard lawsuit will
receive $6,000, and her attorneys will receive $2,750,000 in
attorneys' fees and another $184,416.66 for expenses.Missouri
Nissan Altima and Nissan Maxima customers can learn more at
MissouriFloorPanSettlement.com.

The Nissan floor rust class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri: Laura Frances
Hays v. Nissan North America, Inc, et. al.

The plaintiff is represented by Williams Dirks Dameron LLC, and
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP. [GN]

NVIDIA CORP: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Melting 12VHPWR Cables
-------------------------------------------------------------------
pcmag.com reports that in a note on its support page(Opens in a new
window), Nvidia says it's "actively investigating the reports" of
melting cables and is currently "aware of about 50 cases
globally."

"Our findings to date suggest that a common issue is that
connectors are not fully plugged into the graphics card," it says.
"To help ensure the connector is secure we recommend plugging the
power dongle into the graphics card first to ensure it's firmly and
evenly plugged in, before plugging the graphics card into the
motherboard."

Original Story:
The melting problems with Nvidia's connector cable for the GeForce
RTX 4090 graphics card has resulted in a class-action lawsuit.

New York resident Lucas Genova filed the lawsuit, which was later
spotted(Opens in a new window) by Tom's Hardware. The complaint
revolves around the 12VHPWR connector, which comes bundled with the
RTX 4090, Nvidia's most powerful gaming graphics card to date.

The cable is designed to funnel enough energy into the RTX 4090
through a single 16-pin connector. But since the product launched,
over 20 consumers have encountered the connector partially melting,
according(Opens in a new window) to users on Nvidia's Reddit page.


In his lawsuit(Opens in a new window), Genova says he also bought
an RTX 4090, and noticed the 12VHPWR connector had begun to melt
shortly after using the graphics card. "The cause of the melting
appears to be a design flaw, relating to the high wattage flowing
through each of the 16 pins," the lawsuit says. "If there is even a
temporary break in the electrical connection for any of the pins,
too high a current will flow through the remaining pins, causing a
meltdown."

Genova is now demanding the company pay damages to affected
consumers. His lawsuit calls for the court or jury to determine the
amount on claims Nvidia unjustly enriched itself, violated the
product's warranty and engaged in fraud.

Nvidia didn't immediately respond to a request for a comment. But
the company told(Opens in a new window) Kitguru that it was still
investigating the reported problems with the 12VHPWR connector.

In the meantime, GamersNexus published(Opens in a new window) an
in-depth analysis that shows the melting issues may be a
combination of users incorrectly inserting the 16-pin connector
into the graphics card and poor design. So if you do own an RTX
4090, it's best to ensure you remove any debris from the 16-pin
connectors, firmly insert them into the GPU and avoid pulling the
cable at an angle. [GN]

NWESTCO LLC: Guerrero Suit Remanded to Sacramento Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California remanded the case, EDWIN RUIZ GUERRERO, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NWESTCO, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01620 WBS JDP (E.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the
State of California, in and for the County of Sacramento.

Guerrero initiated the putative labor class action against Nwestco,
alleging wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code, and the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). The Defendant removed the action to
this Court from the Sacramento County Superior Court. The Plaintiff
now moves to remand.

Guerrero only disputes that the requisite amount in controversy has
been met. The Defendant argues that the amount in controversy is
satisfied based on the damages and penalties associated with the
Plaintiff's claims and his anticipated attorneys' fees.

Regarding the value of the Plaintiff's claims, both parties
presented calculations of the expected damages and penalties
associated with the Plaintiff's individual claims. The Defendant
provided an estimate of $39,520.15, while Guerrero provided an
estimate of $14,579.

Judge Shubb finds that the Defendant's estimates are conclusory and
assume various figures with little justification. In contrast, the
Plaintiff accurately analyzed the applicable law and corrected
significant calculation errors made by the Defendant. Altogether,
the Defendant overestimated the value of the claims by $24,940.50.
In addition to correcting the multiple calculation errors, the
Plaintiff's estimate is more than generous to the Defendant as it
incorporates its factual assumptions (while not conceding that they
are accurate).

Accordingly, Judge Shubb adopts the Plaintiff's estimate of damages
and penalties totaling $14,579. In order to satisfy the $75,000
amount in controversy requirement, the Defendant must therefore
establish that the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees are likely to exceed
$60,421.

Turning to the attorneys' fees, Judge Shubb finds that the
Defendant has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
the $75,000 amount in controversy threshold is satisfied and has
therefore failed to overcome the presumption in favor of remand.
There is no reason to believe that the class-wide attorneys' fees,
whether awarded under the lodestar or percentage method, would
reach the requisite amount of $4,229,470.

For these reasons, Judge Shubb grants the Plaintiff's motion to
remand. She remands the case to the Superior Court of the State of
California, in and for the County of Sacramento.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2psykrvs from Leagle.com.


OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Olaplex Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: OLPX), and certain
officers. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, and docketed under
22-cv-08395, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Olaplex common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering conducted on or around September 30, 2021
(the "IPO" or "Offering"), seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 (the "Securities Act") (the "Class").

If you are a shareholder who purchase or otherwise acquired Olaplex
securities, you have until January 17, 2023 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Olaplex was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Santa Barbara,
California. Olaplex manufactures and sells hair care products. The
Company offers hair care shampoos and conditioners for use in
treatment, maintenance, and protection of hair. Olaplex purports to
participate in the "prestige segment" of the haircare market, which
the Company claims is "expected to be the fastest growing segment
of the global haircare market from 2020 to 2025."

On August 27, 2021, Olaplex filed a registration statement on Form
S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on September 29, 2021
(the "Registration Statement").

On October 1, 2021, Olaplex filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with
the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed
part of the Registration Statement (collectively, the "Offering
Documents").

Pursuant to the IPO, Olaplex issued 73,700,000 shares of its common
stock to the public at the Offering price of $21.00 per share for
approximate proceeds of $1,466,445,750 to the Company, after
applicable underwriting discounts and commissions.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing its preparation. Specifically, the Offering Documents
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) macro-economic pressures and competition in the haircare
market were more robust than the Company had represented to
investors; (ii) accordingly, the Company was unlikely to maintain
its sales and revenue momentum; and (iii) as a result, it was
unlikely that the Company would be able to achieve the financial
and operational growth projected in the Offering Documents; and
(iv) as a result, the Offering Documents were materially false
and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be
stated therein.

On September 29, 2022, a Piper Sandler analyst downgraded Olaplex
to Neutral from Overweight, stating that her work revealed that
"competition and misinformation pose growing risks to the company."
In addition, the analyst indicated that she anticipated investments
in marketing and education were needed to offset the headwinds and
that "little room for valuation upside given the risks at play."

On this news, Olaplex's stock price fell $1.33 per share, or
12.15%, to close at $9.62 per share on September 29, 2022.

Then, on October 18, 2022, Olaplex issued a press release in which
"the Company revised its guidance for the 2022 fiscal year".
Olaplex said it now expects fiscal year 2022 revenue between $704
million and $711 million, significantly down from its prior
guidance range of $796 million to $826M. Olaplex stated that "[t]he
Company's updated guidance primarily reflects a slowdown in sales
momentum that it attributes to macro-economic pressures, increased
competitive activity including discounting, and a moderation in new
customer acquisition, as well as inventory rebalancing across
certain customers which the Company believes are in response to
these same macro-economic pressures."

On this news, Olaplex's stock price fell $5.55 per share, or
56.69%, to close at $4.24 per share on October 19, 2022.

As of the time this complaint was filed, the price of Olaplex
common stock continues to trade below the Offering price of $21.00
per share, damaging investors.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members. [GN]

ON THE GROUND: Fails to Pay Field Workers' Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRYSTAN LEMUS and AUSTIN BURLESON, individually and on behalf of
aggrieved employees v. ON THE GROUND INC., a California
corporation, LAWRENCE T. CIAFFONE, an individual; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV35369 (Cal. Super., Nov. 7, 2022) seeks
to recover minimum wage and overtime pay, unpaid reimbursement, all
applicable statutory and civil penalties, attorneys' fees, costs,
and interest under the California Labor Code.

Mr. Lemus and Mr. Burleson were employed by the Defendants as field
workers for 3 months until April 20, 2022. The Defendants allegedly
required the Plaintiffs and the Aggrieved Employees to obtain
signatures either outside a retail store location and/or door to
door at a residential neighborhood.

Accordingly, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the
Aggrieved Employees for all of the work they performed, including
but not limited to the following:

  -- time spent traveling between ON THE GROUND's office and
     their assigned jobsites;

  -- time spent after the end of their scheduled shifts in order
     to complete speaking with potential voters and obtaining
     signatures;

  -- time spent returning signatures to ON THE GROUND'S office,
     filling out paperwork, and accounting for signatures
     obtained from voters;

  -- time spent working during meal periods which were
     automatically deducted from their time records; and

  -- time spent on tasks such as reading the company news feed
     and other work related tasks while "off the clock" outside
     of their scheduled hours.

The Defendants also prohibited the Plaintiffs and the Aggrieved
Employees from recording any time worked outside of their scheduled
hours, says the suit.

On the Ground provides grass roots advocacy services such as door
to door canvassing, generating constituent phone calls, collecting
signatures from registered voters, validation and data management,
voter fraud surveillances, and field research.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kelly Y. Chen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KELLY Y. CHEN
          13200 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 475
          City of Industry, CA 91746
          Telephone: (562) 692-5828
          E-mail: Attorney@kellychenlaw.com

ONANAFE MANAGEMENT: McLaughlin Seeks Janitors' Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSHAWN MCLAUGHLIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. ONANAFE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS LLC d/b/a KLEANIX FACILITY
SERVICES Case No. 1:22-cv-06792 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2022) seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages and unpaid
wages under the Fair Labor Standard ACT and the New York Labor Law,
and statutory penalties, liquidated damages for unpaid wages,
liquidated damages for late payment of wages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a cleaner and porter.
He was employed to provide cleaning/janitorial services for three
of Defendant's customers. The Plaintiff regularly worked at least
five days per week for a total of 40 hours per week. On occasion,
upon request from the Defendants, the Plaintiff would work an
additional day, on Saturday, and therefore worked over 40 hours per
week, the suit says.

The Defendants did not have set or scheduled meal breaks for FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members. Specifically, the
Defendants did not compensate the Plaintiffs for all hours reported
on their timesheets, including for hours worked over 40 hours per
week.

Moreover, the Defendants further deducted one (1) hour for meal
breaks even when meals were not taken or when the breaks were less
than an hour, but the Defendants nonetheless deducted an entire
hour, the suit asserts.

The Defendant owns and operates a cleaning business under the
tradename of "Kleanix Facility Services." The company provides
cleaning, janitorial and maintenance services for companies and
businesses, in a variety of industries including buildings and
shopping centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Brown, Esq
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (212) 295-5828
          Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
          E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com

OSMO NUTRITION: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Osmo Nutrition LLC.
The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Osmo Nutrition LLC, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-09624 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2022).

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

Osmo -- https://osmonutrition.com/ -- makes hydration and recovery
products backed by peer-reviewed science which help athletes of
every type feel and perform their best.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Liu Sues Over Securities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shijun Liu, individually and as trustee of The Liu Family Trust
2019, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC., ALEXANDER KARP, STEPHEN COHEN, PETER
THIEL, WILLIAM HO, KEVIN KAWASAKI, DAVID GLAZER, SHYAM SANKAR,
ALEXANDER MOORE, SPENCER RASCOFF, and ALEXANDRA SCHIFF, Case No.
1:22-cv-02893-PAB (D. Colo., Nov. 4, 2022), is brought under the
Securities Act of 1933, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as
a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Palantir
Class A common stock during the period September 30, 2020 to August
5, 2022 (the "Class Period"), including purchases pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus used in
connection with the offer, sale, and direct listing of Palantir
Class A common stock on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE")
beginning September 30, 2020 (the "Offering").

In the years since its founding, Palantir has claimed to have
experienced considerable growth. By 2019, Palantir claimed to have
over $742 million in annual revenue, a 25% increase over the prior
year. Despite this revenue growth, Palantir was not profitable,
posting a $580 million net loss for the year. Nevertheless,
Palantir reassured investors that it was improving its gross
profits and contribution margins as it moved closer to
profitability, generating $500 million in 2019 gross profit at a
21% contribution margin, compared to $430 million in gross profit
at a 14% contribution margin the prior year.

By 2020, Palantir had grown into one of the most valuable private
startups in the world. At a reported $20 billion valuation, at the
time Palantir was estimated to be the third most valuable private
startup in the United States. Despite years of resisting a public
offering, in July 2020 Palantir announced that it had made a
confidential submission of a draft registration statement with the
SEC for a public offering via a direct listing. Unlike a
traditional initial public offering, in which a company raises
capital through an underwriting syndicate at a set price, in a
direct listing shares are sold at whatever price the market bears
without being underwritten. Palantir's Offering – like most
direct listings – did not raise any capital for the Company but
rather consisted entirely of share sales by Palantir insiders, most
notably several of the Individual Defendants.

Several weeks after beginning the public listing process, on August
19, 2020, news agencies reported that Palantir had decided to move
its headquarters from Palo Alto, California to Denver, Colorado. On
August 25, 2020, Palantir filed with the SEC a registration
statement for the Offering on Form S-1, which was followed by
several amendments, the last of which was filed with the SEC on
September 21, 2020 (the "Registration Statement"). On September 9,
2020, several of the Individual Defendants participated in an
"Investor Day" intended to solicit investments in the Offering,
including defendants Karp, Sankar, Kawasaki, and Glazer.

The Registration Statement became effective on September 22, 2020.
On September 30, 2020, the Company filed with the SEC a final
prospectus on Form 424B4, which was updated via a prospectus
supplement filed with the SEC on November 13, 2020 (the
"Prospectus") and which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement. Pursuant to the Registration Statement, the
Company registered for resale over 257 million shares of its Class
A common stock held by Company insiders, including several of the
Individual Defendants as specified herein. None of the proceeds
from the Offering went to Palantir.

Unbeknownst to investors, at the time of the Offering Palantir's
robust growth in government revenue and deal value had been
temporarily inflated by short-term contracts that the Company had
entered into in connection with government responses to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Palantir's 2020 and early 2021 results reflected
a temporary boost to the Company's government business that was
internally expected to significantly moderate and potentially even
decline by the end of 2021 as governments wound down their pandemic
responses. Rather than disclose these adverse facts, during the
Class Period defendants claimed that Palantir's government revenue
growth was not only sustainable but accelerating as Palantir
purportedly expanded its government client base and scaled its
business with existing clients.

Then, beginning in November 2021, through a series of partial
disclosures Palantir revealed an abrupt slowdown in both its
government and commercial operating segments. Rather than
experiencing accelerating growth, Palantir has ultimately revealed
sequential declines in its government revenue, government deal
value, and total deal value. As a result, the price of Palantir
stock collapsed more than 80% below the Class Period high to less
than $8 per share, causing investors to suffer significant losses
and economic damages under the federal securities laws. But not
before the Individual Defendants sold over $2 billion worth of
their own Palantir shares, many of which had been registered for
resale via the Offering, at prices as high as $33.89 per share,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Palantir Class A common stock during the
Class Period.

Palantir is a software and data analytics company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          2373 Central Park Blvd., Suite 100
          Denver, CO 80238
          Phone: 303/861-1764
          Fax: 303/861-1764
          Email: jeffb@johnsonfistel.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Phone: 619/231-1058
          Fax: 619/231-7423
          Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631/367-7100
          Fax: 631/367-1173
          Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com


PARATEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Avent Seeks Sales Specialists' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRACEY AVENT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARATEK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02814-BPG (D. Md., Oct. 31, 2021) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff seeking all available relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and
the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, arising from the
Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff was employed as a sales specialist in Paratek's
training program in Ellicott City, Maryland from January 2021
through February 2021.

Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a commercial-stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and
commercialization of novel life-saving therapies for
life-threatening diseases or other public health threats for
civilian, government and military use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo Meireles, Esq.
          Tamra Givens, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
                  tgivens@shavitzlaw.com

PARSEC INC: Johnson Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Tyrone Johnson, Terrence Kennedy, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. Parsec, Inc. d/b/a Ohio Parsec, Inc., an Ohio
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV25562 was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on Sept. 26, 2022, and assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-06930.

The Plaintiff filed an unverified Class Action Complaint against
the Defendant which sets forth the following causes of action:
unpaid overtime, unpaid meal premiums, unpaid rest period premiums,
unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, wages not timely
paid during employment, non-compliant wage statements, failure to
keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and
unfair competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
          Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, California 90017-5408
          Phone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          Email: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com
                 Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attention PayPal Holdings, Inc. ("PayPal") (NASDAQ: PYPL)
shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Nov. 7 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased PayPal common
stock between February 3, 2021, and February 1, 2022, inclusive.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in PayPal, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/paypal-class-action-loss-submission-form?prid=33347&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against PayPal includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
defendants had inflated the Company's vitally important Net New
Active Accounts metric guidance through an usually large use of
marketing campaigns that were easily susceptible to fraud; i.e. the
creation of millions of illegitimate accounts which were created
for the sole purpose of taking advantage of cash incentives for
account creation; (2) defendants used these marketing campaigns and
other incentives to hide the Company's true churn rate and
declining levels of engagement with the platform; and (3) as a
result, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and /or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

DEADLINE: December 5, 2022

Aggrieved PayPal investors only have until December 5, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not
required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
recovery.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

PENNSYLVANIA: Entry of Summary Judgment in Stradford v. DOC Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LACEY STRADFORD; WILLIAM NETTLES; JESSE STROUD;
WILLIAM SCOTT; RICHARD RICHARDSON, on behalf of THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED v. SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, Appellant, Case Nos. 21-2655 & 22-2027 (3d Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reverses the District
Court's entry of summary judgment for the Appellees.

Class representatives Lacey Stradford, William Nettles, Jesse
Stroud, William Scott, and Richard Richardson ("Appellees"), all
convicted sex offenders, allege the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections ("DOC") enforces a policy that unconstitutionally
discriminates against sex offenders. The policy requires DOC to
consider, among other things, "community sensitivity" when it
evaluates parolees for halfway house placement.

After completing a minimum sentence, inmates in Pennsylvania are
eligible to serve the rest of their sentence on parole. The
decision to grant parole is discretionary. But each year, about
9,000 Pennsylvania inmates are released on parole.

Sex offenders face several collateral consequences due to the
nature of their criminal acts. They must participate in a
specialized treatment program to become eligible for parole.
Violent sex offenders must continue that specialized treatment
program even after release from prison. Relevant in the instant
matter, the Pennsylvania State Police must notify each resident,
school district, day-care center, and college about nearby
registered violent sex offenders.

According to DOC, that notification requirement makes it difficult
to place sex offenders into community halfway houses because once
neighbors are notified, some oppose sex offenders' presence. For
the same reasons, sex offenders once placed tend to linger in
halfway houses longer than other parolees. By contrast, according
to DOC, other parolees spend 90 days on average in a halfway house.
The cumulative effect of these phenomena is that sex offenders clog
the parole system.

As originally drafted, DOC Policy 8.1.1 Section 4 designated sex
offenders as categorically "hard to place" and rejected them for
initial placement into halfway houses. When the putative sex
offender class challenged that policy in court, the District Court
determined that, because non-sex offenders have a greater
likelihood of successfully rejoining their communities after
temporary placement in a halfway house, the DOC's policy served the
legitimate interest in avoiding clogging the system. The named
Plaintiffs appealed.

While on appeal, DOC changed its policy. The new policy lists
thirteen factors DOC must consider before placing a parolee in a
halfway house: community sensitivity to a criminal offense or
specific criminal incident; board action stipulations; program
needs vs. program availability in a particular area; separations
from other reentrants or staff; multiple failures at one facility;
victim consideration; medical or mental health needs; final
discharge of maximum sentence date; gender status of the facility;
pilots or studies being conducted; request by the reentrant for
relocation; available community resources/support; and where the
reentrant's committing county; requested release county; and home
county are in relation to an appropriate center.

After the policy change, the Third Circuit vacated the District
Court's judgment and remanded for it to consider whether the
lawsuit was moot. The Appellees filed an amended complaint
challenging the new policy and the District Court found the suit
not moot. It said its former decision was in error. It held that
paroled sex offenders are similarly situated to other paroled
offenders, and that there could be no rational basis to delay their
placement into halfway houses because of "community sensitivity."

The instant appeal followed. The Appellees argue that a favorable
parole action eliminates the differences between offenders because
the Parole Board considers them all safe to release into the
public. They also contend that any consideration of community
sensitivity impermissibly opens the door to irrational prejudice
held unconstitutional by City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,
473 U.S. 432, 446 (1985).

The Third Circuit opines that the Appellees are not similarly
situated with non-sex offender parolees. But even if they could
show that they are similarly situated to non-sex offender parolees,
that would not save their claim. Because the Appellees don't belong
to a suspect class, they would have to show that DOC's halfway
house policy is irrational.

The Third Circuit also opines that any parole decision is an
exercise of discretion considering, among many other things, the
Parole Board's best assessment of an offender's risk of recidivism.
The agency's discretionary, predictive decision doesn't render
irrational community concerns about sex offender recidivism or the
State's legitimate interest in protecting vulnerable people.
Likewise, the community is rationally sensitive to sex offender
concentration, and DOC's policy of considering community
sensitivity for halfway house placement rationally relates to its
interest in maximizing halfway house availability for all
offenders. The public's moral judgments about sex offenses are no
less legitimate in post-conviction matters, particularly where
offenders are still serving their term of punishment.

In sum, the Third Circuit concludes that that not all crimes are
alike. The differences among sex crimes, and between sex crimes and
non-sex crimes, preclude the purported similarity between sex
offenders and non-sex offenders in the case. A discretionary grant
of parole cannot erase those differences. In any event, DOC's
halfway house policy considering "community sensitivity," among
many other factors, is rationally related to more than one
legitimate government interest. So we will reverse and remand for
entry of summary judgment for the DOC.

Because the District Court erred in granting summary judgment for
the Appellees, the Third Circuit reverses and remands for entry of
summary judgment for the Department of Corrections. In light of
this disposition, the appeal of the District Court's April 29, 2022
order is dismissed as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5fmjcj8x from Leagle.com.

Sean A. Kirkpatrick, Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania,
Strawberry Square, 15th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17120.

Daniel B. Mullen [Argued], Office of Attorney General of
Pennsylvania, 1251 Waterfront Place, Mezzanine Level, Pittsburgh,
PA 15222, Counsel for the Appellant.

Donald Driscoll [Argued], Community Justice Project, 100 Fifth
Avenue, Suite 900, Pittsburgh, PA 15222.

Alexandra Morgan-Kurtz, Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, 247
Fort Pitt Boulevard, 4th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Counsel for
the Appellees.


PFIZER INC: LaMotte Files Suit in D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seed to Pfizer, Inc.
The case is styled as Tammy LaMotte, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situatedv. Pfizer, Inc., Case No.
0:22-cv-02325-WMW-ECW (D. Minn., Sept. 23, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud.

Pfizer Inc. -- https://www.pfizer.com/ -- is an American
multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporation
headquartered on 42nd Street in Manhattan, New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marlene J. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERGLAW, PLLC
          800 LaSalle Ave Ste 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 436-5028
          Fax: (612) 367-8107
          Email: mjgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jessica Wilson, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
          Boston, MA 02130
          Phone: (617) 406-6044
          Email: jessica.wilson@us.dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Ruth Dapper, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          401 B Street, Ste. 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 699-2752
          Fax: (619) 699-2701
          Email: ruth.dapper@dlapiper.com


PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Carter Files Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE CARTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-04355 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 31, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Control Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly intercepted
subscribers' electronic communications without the proper consent
by deciding to use Facebook's Meta Pixel, a code Defendant
installed on its website, allowing Defendant to track "conversions"
and to collect users' data. The Defendant then disclosed to
Facebook the contents of these electronic communications in the
form of subscribers' (i) personally identifiable Facebook ID and
(ii) the computer file containing the watched video and its
corresponding URL. Together, the FID and video media constitute a
subscriber's "Personal Viewing Information."

The Defendant chose to disregard Plaintiff's and other subscribers'
statutorily protected privacy rights by releasing their personal
data to Facebook. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action
for legal and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to
Defendant's practices of intentionally intercepting and disclosing
its subscribers' personal viewing information to Facebook, says the
suit.

The Philadelphia Inquirer, LLC is an American media company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Macoretta, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN AND KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103  
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com
                  jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
                  dzinser@srkattorneys.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
          4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                  tnaylor@gs-legal.com

POLISHED.COM INC: Maschhoff Sues Over False Registration Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN MASCHHOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POLISHED.COM INC. F/K/A 1847 GOEDEKER INC.,
DOUGLAS T. MOORE, ROBERT D. BARRY, ALBERT FOUERTI, MARIA JOHNSON,
ELLERY W. ROBERTS, THINKEQUITY, A DIVISION OF FORDHAM FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT, INC., AEGIS CAPITAL CORP., and SPARTAN CAPITAL
SECURITIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06606-NGG-VMS
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022) is a class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Polished securities: (1) pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's 2020 initial public
offering; and/or (2) between July 27, 2020 and August 25, 2022,
inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On July 27, 2020, Defendants held the IPO, issuing approximately
1,111,200 shares to the investing public at $9.00 per share,
pursuant to the Registration Statement.

According to the complaint, the statements issued in connection
with the IPO were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known
to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the
Registration Statement was false and/or misleading and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company would restate certain financials;
(2) the Company's internal controls were inadequate; (3) the
Company downplayed and obfuscated its internal controls issues; (4)
as a result, the Company would engage in an independent
investigation; (5) as a result of the investigation, the Company
would, among other things, retain independent counsel and
consultants, and delay its quarterly filings in violation of NYSE
requirements of listing; (6) following the commencement of the
investigation, the Company's CEO and CFO would leave the Company;
and (7) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times, says the suit.

As of the filing of this action, the Company's shares traded
significantly below the IPO price. As a result, investors were
damaged, the suit claims.

POLISHED.COM INC. f/k/a 1847 Goedeker Inc. operates as an online
consumer goods retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Forbes Sues Over Charcoal Toothbrushes' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICE FORBES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. Defendant, Case No.
7:22-cv-09330 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022) asserts claims on behalf of
Plaintiff and similarly situated purchasers of Defendant's Charcoal
Products for violations of the consumer protection laws of New
York, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty of fitness, and
breach of express warranty.

Proctor & Gamble has made millions of dollars selling its Oral-B
charcoal toothbrush products. These products include the (1) Oral-B
Charcoal Soft Whitening Therapy Toothbrush, (2) Oral-B Clinical
Charcoal Battery Powered Toothbrush, and (3) Oral-B Charcoal
Electric Toothbrush Replacement Brush Heads Refill. To capitalize
on consumer demand for teeth whitening products, the Defendant
makes false and misleading representations about its Charcoal
Products to sell the Products at a premium price. The Defendant
falsely represents that the Charcoal Products' "charcoal-infused
bristles" will "naturally whiten[] teeth" in as little as one week,
says the suit.

Based on Defendant's false and misleading whitening claims,
Plaintiff, and the class members he seeks to represent, bought
Defendant's Charcoal Products at a price premium. Because Plaintiff
and others like him were taken in by Defendant's false promise of
whitening, Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant to
seek a reimbursement of the premium Plaintiff and the class members
paid based on Defendant's false whitening representations, the suit
asserts.

The Procter & Gamble Co. is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com

R.C. BIGELOW INC: Newton Files Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R.C. Bigelow, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Claudia Newton, Brandy Leandro, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. R.C.
Bigelow, Inc., Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:22-cv-05660-LDH-SIL
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2022).

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

The Bigelow Tea Company (formerly R.C. Bigelow, Inc.) --
https://www.bigelowtea.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of dried
teas based in Fairfield, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          100 Oceangate, Ste. 1200
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Phone: (310) 590-4503
          Email: awand@wandlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniella Quitt, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: (212) 935-7400
          Email: dquitt@glancylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          JoAnna Marie Doherty, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Phone: (973) 549-2527
          Fax: (973) 377-1911
          Email: jmdoherty@gordonrees.com


RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Nelson Files Suit in D. New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radiology Associates
of Albuquerque, PA, et al. The case is styled as Deon Nelson, Carol
Depriest, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Radiology Associates of Albuquerque, PA, Advanced
Imaging, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00707-JFR-JHR (D.N.M., Sept. 23,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury.

Radiology Associates of Albuquerque -- https://www.raaonline.com/
-- is your compassionate & high-quality medical imaging provider
from x-rays to CT scans, mammograms, MRIs, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RADIUS GLOBAL: Hoenig Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY HOENIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 531516/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Oct. 31, 2022) arises from
the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant collects and attempts to
collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for
personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using
the United States Postal Services, telephone, and Internet. The
Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair representations with
respect to its collection efforts were material misrepresentations
that affected and frustrated the Plaintiff's ability to
intelligently respond to the Defendant's collection efforts because
the Plaintiff could not adequately respond to the Defendant's
demand for payment of this debt, says the suit.

Radius Global Solutions LLC is a debt collection agency in
Bloomington, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Yusko, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com

RAPID FINANCIAL: Bid to Certify Class in Watkins Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER WATKINS, et al., Plaintiffs v. RAPID
FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00509-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.), Chief District Judge Miranda M. Du
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada grants
Watkins' motion for class certification.

Watkins seeks to certify a class of people recently incarcerated in
Nevada who were required upon release to use prepaid Access Freedom
Cards, issued and serviced by the Defendants, to access funds they
earned or otherwise accumulated while incarcerated, with no
alternative as to the method of reimbursement.

Watkins challenges the Defendants' practices around the issuance
and servicing of the Cards. He moves to certify a Nevada-specific
class, asserting claims under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act
("EFTA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1698, et seq., the Nevada Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, NRS Sections 598.092(8) and (14) and
598.0923(3), conversion and unjust enrichment under NRS Section
598.0953, and the Takings Clause of Article I of the Nevada
Constitution.

Additionally, with respect to the EFTA claim, Watkins seeks to
represent individuals recently incarcerated in Nevada who have
opted out of a nationwide class certified in another pending
action, Reichert v. Keefe Commissary Network, L.L.C., Case No.
3:17-cv-05848-RBL (W.D. Wash. Oct. 20, 2017).

Watkins was incarcerated in the custody of the Nevada Department of
Corrections ("NDOC"), housed at the Stewart Conservation Camp
facility, from March 2019 until April 13, 2020. While in custody,
Watkins was voluntarily employed as a firefighter and earned $1 per
hour; $0.10 of his hourly earnings were transferred to his prison
trust account. Watkins' family members also deposited money into
the trust account.

Ten days before his release, Watkins met with his case worker, who
instructed him to sign documentation that would close out his trust
account. The case worker notified him that approximately $400 in
his account would be loaded onto a Card issued by Axiom Bank, N.A.
and serviced by Rapid. On April 6, 2020, NDOC credited $431.20 onto
the Card. Rapid declares that Watkins activated the Card on April
7, 2020, six days before his release. On April 10, 2020 -- three
days before release -- Watkins was charged a weekly account
maintenance fee of $1.50.

On April 13, 2020, Watkins was released from NDOC custody. He was
subject to the Card's fees, which began diminishing his Card
balance on April 10, 2020, three days before his release date. His
transaction report shows that a weekly "account maintenance fee" of
$1.50 was withdrawn from his account from April 10, 2020, to July
31, 2020. Moreover, he declares that he "was charged a fee every
time he swiped the card at an ATM," which "forced" him "to get cash
back whenever he made a purchase." After requesting cash back on
several in-store purchases, Watkins again contacted the Card's
customer service number and asked how to withdraw his remaining
funds. He then learned that the weekly account maintenance fee
would apply to his account "until there was a zero balance."

Watkins initially filed his class-action complaint on July 31,
2020, in Nevada state district court. Rapid and Axiom removed and
then moved to compel arbitration, citing the Cardholder Agreement
affixed to the Card. The Court denied the Defendants' motion,
finding that Watkins had not mutually assented to the Cardholder
Agreement and that an unconscionable adhesion contract had been
formed.

The Court then granted the parties' stipulation to allow Watkins to
file his first amended complaint ("FAC"). In the FAC, Watkins added
Defendant Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, an operator of commissary
stores that, alongside Rapid and Axiom, contracts with NDOC to
issue and service the Cards.

Before Watkins initiated this action, he had been a class member in
the Reichert action, still pending in the Western District of
Washington, challenging the same defendants and Card policies.
However, he timely and properly opted out of the Reichert national
class on April 16, 2022.

Watkins moved for class certification on behalf of people formerly
incarcerated in Nevada who were also subject to the Defendants'
Card policies, defining the class as: "All persons who, at any time
since July 31, 2016, were: (1) released from a jail, detention
center, or prison located in the state of Nevada, (2) entitled to
the return of money either confiscated from them or remaining in
their inmate trust account when they were released, (3) issued a
prepaid debit card from Defendant RAPID FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS or its
affiliates, and/or Defendant AXIOM BANK N.A. of Florida, and/or
Defendant KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK and were subject to fees,
charges, and restrictions, and (4) not offered an alternative
method for return of their money."

The proposed class is narrower than the class definition in the
FAC.

Judge Du first decides whether to allow Watkins to modify his
proposed class before assessing whether the class is ascertainable.
She finds that Watkins' proposed modification is permissible
because he narrowed the class' scope in response to the Defendants'
opposing arguments, and the revised class definition will not
create additional discovery burdens. Accordingly, she allows
Watkins to redefine the class and considers the modified proposed
class definition to resolve the instant motion.

Judge Du then finds that Watkins has demonstrated that the class is
ascertainable. Having determined Watkins' proposed class is
ascertainable, she must evaluate whether the class meets the four
Rule 23(a) prerequisites for certification (numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation) and Rule
23(b)(3) -- predominance and superiority.

In sum, Judge Du finds that the case meets Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23's certification requirements. She finds that Watkins'
proposed class is ascertainable and complies with the prerequisites
of Rule 23(a). Watkins also complies with the requirements for
pursuing a class action under Rule 23(b)(3). Consequently, she
grants Watkins's Motion with respect to each of his claims. She
appoints Watkins' counsel as the class counsel due to their
experience, knowledge, and resources.

Judge Du notes the parties made several arguments and cited to
several cases not discussed. She has reviewed these arguments and
cases and determines they do not warrant discussion as they do not
affect the outcome of the motion before the Court.

Judge Du, therefore, grants Watkins' motion for class
certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/d4zmn2aa from Leagle.com.


REALPAGE INC: Lazarte Sues Over Artificially Raised Rental Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Lazarte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BH MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; FPI
MANAGEMENT, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN
PROPERTY CO.; MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; SECURITY
PROPERTIES INC.; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC.; and UDR,
INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-06904 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2022), is brought
challenging the Defendants RealPage, Inc. and certain lessors of
multifamily residential property leases, including Avenue5
Residential, LLC, BH Management Services, LLC, Cushman & Wakefield,
Inc., Equity Residential,  FPI Management, Inc., Greystar Real
Estate Partners, LLC, Lincoln Property Co., Mid-America Apartment
Communities, Inc., Security Properties, Inc., Thrive Communities
Management, LLC, and UDR, Inc. (together, "Landlords" or "Landlord
Defendants" and collectively with Real Page, Inc., "Defendants")
for engaging in a conspiracy to artificially raise the rental
prices of multifamily residential property leases in the United
States to supra-competitive levels.

On November 1, 2022, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, the chair of a
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, urged the
Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") to examine software sold by
RealPage after a ProPublica investigation revealed possible
collusion. Senator Brown stated, "Renters should have the power to
negotiate fairly priced housing, free from illicit collusion, and
deceptive pricing techniques." RealPage developed RealPage
Software, which sets prices of Landlords' apartments across the
country using RealPage's proprietary algorithm RealPage Software
not only uses information about the apartment to be priced and the
property in which it is located but also uses private data about
the rents of nearby competitors. By using RealPage Software,
Landlords succeeded in colluding to increase lease prices to
Plaintiff and other members of the Class.

According to RealPage's website, it "balances supply and demand to
maximize Landlords' revenue growth." RealPage discourages
bargaining with renters and has even recommended that Landlords in
some cases accept a lower occupancy rate to raise rents and make
more money. In this manner, RealPage and Landlords used RealPage
Software to facilitate an agreement not to compete on apartment
prices through these mutually reinforcing mechanisms in furtherance
of anticompetitive price suppression for multifamily residential
property leases. Shockingly, by its own admission, RealPage states
that RealPage Software can "help participating Landlords
"outperform the market 3% to 7%."

This process of collusion was executed between Landlords and
RealPage in the following manner: The scheme operates on the basic
principle that the more property managers who sign up for RealPage
services, the more data flows into the company's repository. Upon
joining the platform, Landlords "outsource daily pricing and
ongoing revenue oversight" to RealPage.

Following this adherence to prices, RealPage allows participating
Landlords to coordinate and artificially reduce lease supply levels
to avoid price competition. In a competitive market, there are
periods where supply exceeds demand, which puts downward pressure
on market prices as firms compete to attract renters. However,
contrary to the natural play of market forces and to avoid lawful
competition, RealPage provides Landlords with information to hold
vacant rental units for periods of time to ensure that oversupply
does not preclude rental price hikes. Although RealPage claims its
Software will increase revenue and decrease vacancies, it continues
to urge Landlords and other property managers to reduce supply
while increasing price.

This artificial supply reduction combined with discouraging of
bargaining with renters allow Landlords that use RealPage to
increase rents and make more money.5 This is the overarching tenet
of RealPage's business—reducing physical occupancy to maximize
profits by increasing rents. In this manner, Defendants' concerted
efforts have resulted in a manipulation of market forces, increased
rents, decreased physical occupancy, and caused harm to consumer
renters.

As a direct result of the anticompetitive and unlawful conduct
alleged herein, the Plaintiff and the Class paid artificially
inflated prices for rental leases during the period from and
including January 1, 2016 until the anticompetitive effects of
Defendants' unlawful conduct ceased. Plaintiff brings this action
to recover their damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other
appropriate relief, detailed infra, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has rented a multifamily residential unit in a
property known as Acappella Apartments in San Bruno, California
from November 2021 through the present.

RealPage is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Richardson,
Texas and it has nearly 31,700 customers that together control the
critical mass of rental real estate in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
          Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
          James G. Dallal, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Phone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com
                 ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
                 jdallal@cpmlegal.com


RENT THE RUNWAY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
investors who Rent the Runway, Inc. ("RTR") (NASDAQ:RENT) who
purchased Class A common stock issued in connection with RTR's
October 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO").

All investors who purchased the shares and incurred losses are
advised to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or
(800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action or join the case on our website,
www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses, you may, no later than January 13,
2023, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the
proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about
your rights.

RTR is an e-commerce platform that allows users to rent, subscribe,
or buy designer apparel and accessories. RTR offers high-end
apparel such as evening wear and accessories, as well as more
causal and mixed-use items.

On October 4, 2021, RTR filed an SEC registration statement on a
FormS-1 for the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared
effective on October 26, 2021 (the "Registration Statement"). On
October 27, 2021, RTR filed a prospectus for the IPO on a Form
424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration
Statement (the "Prospectus"). 17 million shares of RTR Class A
common stock at $21 per share for $357 million were sold to
investors.

According to the filed complaint, RTR failed to disclose in its
Registration Statement and Prospectus the following adverse facts
that existed at the time of the IPO:

RTR was continuing to face extraordinary business head winds, such
as transportation headwinds and labor wage rate increases, from the
COVID-19 pandemic;
RTR's active subscriber enrollments had sharply decelerated from
the growth trajectory represented in the Registration Statement
and, as a result, RTR was several months away from approaching its
pre-pandemic levels of active subscriptions;
RTR needed to substantially increase marketing and advertising
costs from historical figures in order to attempt to grow its
active subscriber network;
RTR was suffering from ballooning fulfillment and transportation
costs; and
as a result of the above, RTR was suffering accelerating
operational losses at the time of the IPO and was far less likely
to achieve profitability in the near term, if ever, than originally
represented. RTR's stock is currently trading at $1.60 per share,
or over 90% below the IPO price.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735 or via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com [GN]

RESOURCE ONE CREDIT: Harris Sues Over Improper Fee Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Tavia Harris, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. RESOURCE ONE CREDIT UNION, Case No. DC-22-13502 (Tex.
Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty., Sept. 21, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant over the improper practice of imposing multiple $35 fees
on an item, a practice which breaches the Defendant's customer
contract and the Defendant's duty of good faith and fair dealing,
and unjustly enriches the Defendant, and violates the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Overdraft fees are among the primary fee generators for banks.
Unfortunately, the customers who are assessed these fees are the
most vulnerable customers. Younger, lower income and non-white
account holders are among those who were more likely to be assessed
overdraft fees. Through the imposition of these fees, the Defendant
has made substantial revenue to the tune of tens of millions of
dollars, seeking to turn its customers financial struggles into
revenue. The Plaintiff, like thousands of others, has fallen victim
to the Defendants Overdraft Fee revenue maximization scheme.

The Defendant unlawfully maximizes its already profitable fees to
its deceptive and contractually-prohibited practice of charging
multiple NSF fees, or an NSF fee, followed by an OD fee on an item.
Unbeknownst to consumers, when the Defendant reprocesses an
electronic payment item, ACH item, or check for payment after it
was initially rejected for insufficient funds, the Defendant
chooses to treat it as a new and unique item that is subject to yet
another fee. But the Defendants contract never states that this
counterintuitive and deceptive result could be possible, and in
fact, promises the opposite, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has had a checking account with the Defendant.

The Defendant provides retail banking services to its
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. Thompson, Esq.
          Ryan H. Anderson, Esq.
          THOMPSON LAW, LLP
          3300 Oak Law Ave., 3rd Floor
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 755-7777
          Fax: (214) 716-0116
          Email: rthompson@triallawyers.com
                 randerson@triallawyers.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street N W, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (202) 350-4783
          Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

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


RISE SERVICES: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Dec. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deion Anthony, v. Rise
Services Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00268-GMS (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge G. Murray Snow entered an order granting the
parties' stipulation extending deadlines in case management order
as follows:

   Motion for Class Certification:        December 23, 2022

   Opposition to Class Certification:     January 20, 2023

   Reply regarding Class Certification:   February 10, 2023

   Motion for Class Decertification:      130 days following
                                          class certification
                                          ruling

   Opposition to Decertification:         150 days following
                                          class certification
                                          ruling

   Reply regarding Decertification:       150 days following
                                          class certification
                                          ruling

   Fact Discovery Deadline:               120 days following
                                          class certification
                                          ruling

Rise provides foster care, disability and Early Intervention
services, including day programs, managed care, employment
assistance, summer programs, kinship care, mental health services,
Speech Therapy and Developmental Specialists.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TxQX8jat no extra charge.[CC]

RITE AID: Loses Bid to Stay Stafford Suit Pending Washington Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Todd W. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California vacates a scheduled hearing and denies the
Defendants' motion to stay the lawsuit captioned BRYON STAFFORD,
individually and on Lead behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-1340
TWR (JLB), Consolidated with No. 18-CV-152 TWR (JLB) (S.D. Cal.).

Before the Court is the Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Ninth
Circuit Appeal in Washington v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 21-16162
(9th Cir. filed July 12, 2021) (the "Washington appeal"), filed by
Defendants Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., as well
as Plaintiffs Bryon Stafford and Robert Josten's Response in
Opposition to the Motion, the Defendants' Reply in Support of the
Motion, and the Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority
(Order, County of Monmouth v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 20-cv-2024 (E.D.
Pa. filed Oct. 19, 2022)) (the "Monmouth Order".) The Court vacates
the hearing scheduled for Nov. 10, 2022.

The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action on June 30,
2017, alleging causes of action against Rite Aid Corporation for
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. Specifically,
the Plaintiff alleged that, at bottom, this action concerns Rite
Aid's illegal practice of overcharging customers enrolled in public
or private health care plans for generic prescription drugs by
submitting to third-party payors claims for payment at prices that
Rite Aid has knowingly and intentionally inflated about its 'usual
and customary' prices.

Plaintiff Robert Josten also filed his own putative class action on
Jan. 23, 2018, alleging similar causes of action for negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, violation of the unfair and
unlawful prongs of the UCL, violation of the CLRA, and declaratory
and injunctive relief. Rite Aid Corporation moved to dismiss the
Josten action on March 16, 2018.

At the Parties' request, the Stafford and Josten actions were
consolidated on Oct. 24, 2019. Rite Aid filed a motion to compel
arbitration as to Plaintiff Josten on Dec. 30, 2019. Judge
Battaglia denied the motion to compel arbitration as to Plaintiff
Stafford on Feb. 25, 2020, and granted the Parties' joint motion to
add Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp. as a Defendant on March 4, 2020. The
Plaintiffs filed their respective operative complaints on March 6,
2020 ("Stafford TAC") ("Josten SAC").

On March 24, 2020, Rite Aid appealed Judge Battaglia's denial of
its motion to compel arbitration as to Plaintiff Stafford. The
Parties then proceeded to discovery, and Defendant Rite Aid Hdqtrs.
Corp. moved to compel arbitration as to Plaintiff Stafford and
Plaintiff Josten. On June 10, 2020, the Defendants moved ex parte
to stay the consolidated actions in light of their then-pending
appeal of the arbitration issue, which request Judge Battaglia
granted on July 30, 2020.

These consolidated actions were then transferred to Judge Robinson
on Oct. 6, 2020, at which time the Court denied without prejudice
the pending motion to compel arbitration as to Plaintiff Josten.

On May 21, 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Judge Battaglia's
denial of Defendant Rite Aid Corporation's motion to compel
arbitration as to Plaintiff Stafford. The Court, therefore, lifted
the stay on July 20, 2021.

On Aug. 3, 2021, however, the Parties jointly moved to stay these
proceedings pending mediation. These consolidated actions remained
stayed pending mediation for over a year until the Court lifted the
stay on Sept. 1, 2022, following an "impasse" in the Parties'
settlement negotiations. As intimated in the Parties' Aug. 31, 2022
Joint Status Report, the instant Motion followed on Sept. 15,
2022.

In the Motion, Rite Aid requests that the Court stay this action
until the resolution of the Washington appeal. According to it, the
Washington appeal is poised to resolve several questions that are
critical for efficient discovery and resolution of discovery
disputes, class certification, summary judgment and, if necessary,
trial of this action because, as in this case, Washington involves
consumers asserting that the pharmacy violated a duty to not
collect a copayment from them that exceeded its usual and customary
("U&C") price, which the consumers allege was the special
discounted price offered to members of the pharmacy's membership
discount program.

The Plaintiffs respond that neither the substance nor pendency of
Washington impact proceedings in this action because the Plaintiffs
here are not proceeding on the same contract-based theories of
liability as in Washington.

The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs. The Defendants have failed to
demonstrate that awaiting a decision from the Ninth Circuit in
Washington will further the "orderly course of justice" by
simplifying issues in these consolidated proceedings, Judge
Robinson holds.

Indeed, Stafford -- which was filed over five years ago, -- is the
second oldest case on the Court's docket (Josten is the third).
These consolidated actions have essentially been stayed since July
30, 2020, pending appeal and then mediation. As early as Aug. 3,
2021, the Parties represented to the Court that the stay requested
should not materially delay trial.

The Court extended the stay pending mediation several times based
on its understanding that the Parties were working diligently and
in good faith toward settlement. The Court was, therefore,
surprised when the Parties reported on Aug. 31, 2022, that their
settlement negotiations had failed, leaving these relatively
ancient consolidated proceedings in their nascency and in the midst
of discovery, Judge Robinson points out.

Given these circumstances, all of the Landis factors (Landis v. N.
Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)) -- the possible damage from
granting a stay, the hardship in requiring the Defendants to go
forward, and the orderly course of justice -- weigh against the
granting of a further stay in this action, Judge Robinson holds.
The Court, therefore, denies the Defendants' Motion.

In light of the foregoing, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion
to Stay. Accordingly, the Parties will contact Magistrate Judge
Goddard's chambers within three (3) court days of the electronic
docketing of this Order to obtain an updated Scheduling Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9z663y from Leagle.com.


ROBINSON NURSING: Arbitration Order in Phillips Suit Remanded
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ROBINSON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER,
LLC, D/B/A ROBINSON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, Appellant v.
ANDREW PHILLIPS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
DOROTHY PHILLIPS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES
OF DOROTHY PHILLIPS; AND ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, Case No. CV-22-113 (Ark.), the
Supreme Court of Arkansas remands the matter to the circuit court
with instructions.

Robinson appeals from a Pulaski County Circuit Court order granting
in part and denying in part its motion to enforce arbitration
agreements and to compel class members with arbitration agreements
to submit their claims to binding arbitration.

For reversal, Robinson argues that law of the case controls, the
arbitration agreements are valid, and the affirmative defenses pled
by Appellee Andrew Phillips fail. Phillips, as personal
representative of the Estate of Dorothy Phillips, on behalf of the
wrongful-death beneficiaries, and as class representative in this
class-action suit, cross-appeals and asserts that the circuit
court's order redefines class membership and acts as a final
disposition of the case.

The facts in this case were set forth at length in Robinson Nursing
and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Phillips, 2017 Ark. 162, 519
S.W.3d 291 (Phillips I), and Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation
Center, LLC v. Phillips, 2019 Ark. 305, 586 S.W.3d 624 (Phillips
II).

In Phillips I, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's grant
of class certification with respect to Phillips's claims of breach
of contract, a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, and unjust enrichment, and the Supreme Court reversed with
respect to Phillips's negligence claim. Robinson then sought to
compel arbitration of the claims of its 544 residents identified in
the class.

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Robinson's
motions to compel arbitration of its arbitration agreements that
contained deficiencies. The Supreme Court also reversed and
remanded with respect to those arbitration agreements not otherwise
held to be invalid in Phillips II.

Subsequently, Robinson moved to enforce arbitration agreements and
to compel 197 residents with arbitration agreements to submit their
claims to binding arbitration. The circuit court entered an order
granting arbitration to 93 residents and denying arbitration to the
remaining 104 residents.

In Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Phillips,
2022 Ark. 109 (Phillips III), the Supreme Court held that the
circuit court had made no findings whatsoever, and remanded the
case with instructions to the circuit court to make findings
regarding its decision to deny Robinson's motion to compel
arbitration.

On June 4, 2021, Robinson filed a memorandum motion to enforce
arbitration agreements and to compel other class members with
arbitration agreements to submit their claims to binding
arbitration. This motion involved arbitration agreements signed by
33 residents at admission. On Oct. 25, 2021, the circuit court
entered an order granting in part with respect to 15 residents and
denying in part with respect to 18 residents. Robinson appealed,
and Phillips cross-appealed.

Robinson raises several points in its brief, which was filed prior
to this Court's opinion in Phillips III. Phillips filed a
responsive brief and asserts that this case should be remanded for
additional findings pursuant to this court's holding in Phillips
III. Robinson concedes in its reply brief that the case should be
remanded for additional findings.

The circuit court ruled on Robinson's motion to enforce arbitration
agreements, as follows:

     4. Defendant's Memorandum Motion to Enforce Arbitration
     Agreements And To Compel Class Members With Arbitration
     Agreements To Submit Their Claims To Binding Arbitration,
     filed on June 4, 2021, is granted in part and denied in
     part. The motion is granted with respect to: Elane Britt,
     Natalie Canard, John Dodds, Robert Hancock, Dorothy Jackson,
     Johnnie Jones, Bryan Lawrence, Elisa Miller, Penny Passe,
     Mona Roseanna Rea (listed on admission agreement as Rea Mona
     Roseanna, Dakeisha Ruffin, Terryl Sipes, Rudolph Walker,
     Corrine Walters, and Juanita Wilburn. The motion is denied
     with respect to: Wanda Bridges, Donna Casey, Iva Burns
     Knowles, Wanda Dorrell, Pamela Harris, Robert Haymes,
     Clarice Lackie, Craig MacDonald, Mary Magee, Naomi Maynard,
     Bill McCord, Thomas Myrick, Larry Pippen, Robert Rose,
     Margie Ruple, Charles Shryock, Shirley Taylor, and Vernie
     Throneberry.

Chief Justice John Dan Kemp, writing for the Panel, notes that the
circuit court again made no findings, other than granting in part
and denying in part as to certain residents, without stating the
basis for its decision.

In order to conduct a proper appellate review, Judge Kemp says the
Panel must know the circuit court's rationale for its decision.
Thus, in accordance with its holding in Phillips III, the Supreme
Court remands the case with instructions for the circuit court to
make findings regarding its order denying Robinson's motion to
compel arbitration.

Remanded with instructions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion  dated Nov. 3, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4d6r569z from Leagle.com.

Hardin, Jesson & Terry, PLC (Little Rock), by: Jeffrey W. Hatfield
-- jhatfield@hardinlaw.com -- Kynda Almefty --
kalmefty@hardinlaw.com -- and Carol Ricketts --
cricketts@hardinlaw.com -- and Hardin, Jesson & Terry, PLC (Fort
Smith), by: Kirkman T. Dougherty -- kdougherty@hardinlaw.com -- and
Stephanie I. Randall -- srandall@hardinlaw.com -- for the
Appellant.

Reddick Law, PLLC by: Matthew D. Swindle and Heather G. Zachary;
and Campbell Law Firm, P.A. by: H. Gregory Campbell, for the
Appellees.


RUSHMORE SERVICE: Arbitration Bid in Pistone FDCPA Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RENEE PISTONE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUSHMORE SERVICE CENTER, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-698 (ZNQ) (LHG) (D.N.J.), Judge
Zahid N. Quraishi of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey denies the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and
Stay the Proceeding Pending Arbitration without prejudice.

The Plaintiff initiated the action by filing a Complaint against
the Defendant, claiming it violated the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff, a consumer, allegedly
incurred debts from First Premier Bank, and the debts were
eventually referred for collection by First Premier to the
Defendant.

In two letters to the Plaintiff, both dated Jan. 13, 2020, the
Defendant advised that it had been retained by PREMIER Bankcard,
LLC to collect on the Plaintiff's overdue accounts. The Letters
further stated: "Unless you notify this office within 30 days after
receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or
any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid."

On Jan. 13, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
alleging that the Defendant violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section
1692 et seq. The Complaint alleges that each collection letter
includes three separate addresses for the Defendant. The Plaintiff
asserts that the use of multiple addresses by the Defendant
overshadowed the disclosure to the consumer of the consumer's
rights to dispute the debt and obtain verification of the debt. As
such, he alleges that the collection letters violated the FDCPA.

On Sept. 24, 2021, the Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel
Arbitration, attaching First Premier Bank's Credit Card Contract
and Account Opening Disclosures on both accounts, which includes an
arbitration provision and class-action waiver. The Plaintiff
opposed the motion, arguing that the Defendant failed to prove, at
this junction, that there is a valid arbitration agreement.

Judge Quraishi opines, as the Defendant points out in its
opposition, the existence of the Card Agreement and its arbitration
provision and class-action waiver is not referenced in the
Complaint but is raised for the first time in the Defendant's
motion. Given that the question of arbitrability cannot be resolved
without considering evidence extraneous to the pleadings, it would
be inappropriate to apply a Rule 12(b)(6) standard in deciding the
instant motion. As the Third Circuit instructed in Guidotti, in
this type of scenario, "the motion to compel arbitration must be
denied pending further development of the factual record."

Thus, Judge Quraishi denies the Defendant's motion without
prejudice, and orders the parties to conduct limited discovery on
the issue of arbitrability over the next 45 days. Afterwards, the
Defendant may file a renewed motion to compel arbitration by no
later than Jan. 14, 2023, which the Court will review under a Rule
56 standard.

An appropriate order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4a6wwcen from Leagle.com.


S.B.S. LIEN SERVICES: Patton Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against S.B.S. Lien Services,
et al. The case is styled as Donique Patton, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. S.B.S. Lien Services,
Orange Grove Homeowners Association, Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:22-cv-08132-DMG-PD (C.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2022).

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

S.B.S. -- https://liencollections.com/ -- provides collection
services throughout the State of California for property management
companies and homeowners associations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN
          7304 Beverly Boulevard Suite 212
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Phone: (323) 937-0400
          Fax: (866) 288-9194
          Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com


SAINT MARYS COLLEGE: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saint Marys College
Of California. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Saint Marys
College Of California, Case No. 1:22-cv-00840-LJV (W.D.N.Y., Nov.
4, 2022).

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

Saint Mary's College of California -- https://www.stmarys-ca.edu/
-- is a private Catholic college in Moraga, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal

               - and -

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
          122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
          New York, NY 10168
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal

SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Settlement in Adams-Gillard Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENITA ADAMS-GILLARD and
JAY SYCKS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02038-SHM-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Samuel
h. Mays, Jr. entered an order granting final approval of class
settlement and granting motion for attorneys' fees.

  -- 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, Case No.
     1:19-cv-07482.

     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 shall create a
     class fund in the amount of $1,600,000. 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.

  -- 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 Defendant.

This multistate class action arises from the Defendant Sedgwick
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.

On May 16, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed Settlement and provisionally certified two classes for
settlement purposes only.

Sedgwick provides a broad range of solutions that include global,
casualty, benefits, property, marine, brand protection, technology
and integrated solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3E7ULHtat no extra charge.[CC]

SEPHORA USA: "Clean" Products Use Synthetic Ingredients, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Sephora deceptively sells beauty
products that contain synthetic and harmful ingredients under its
Clean at Sephora program a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Lindsey Finster filed the class action lawsuit against
Sephora USA Inc. on Nov. 11 in a New York federal court, alleging
violations of state and federal consumer laws.

Sephora manufactures and sells cosmetics advertised as "clean"
under its Clean at Sephora program, the lawsuit states.

Finster says consumers understand "clean" consistent with its
dictionary definitions, which define it as describing something
free from impurities, or unnecessary and harmful components, and
pure. In the context of cosmetics, this means products made without
synthetic chemicals and ingredients that could harm the body, skin
or environment, she says.

"However, a significant percentage of products with the 'Clean At
Sephora' contain ingredients inconsistent with how consumers
understand this term," the lawsuit alleges.

Sephora 'clean' products contain harmful ingredients, lawsuit
alleges

Finster uses the Saie Mascara 101 as an example, which is sold
under the Clean at Sephora program. The lawsuit alleges it contains
numerous synthetic ingredients, several of which have been reported
to cause possible harms.

The lawsuit points out several synthetic ingredients in the product
could be harmful or skin irritants.

The complaint also alleges that, as a result of being labeled
"clean," the mascara was sold at a higher price point than it
should have been.

The Sephora class action seeks to represent anyone in New York who
bought products from the Clean at Sephora program, plus a consumer
fraud multistate class from Texas, North Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho,
Alaska, Iowa, West Virginia, North Carolina and Utah.

Finster is suing for violations of New York General Business Law,
and for violations of state consumer fraud acts, breach of
warranty, fraud and unjust enrichment.

She seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs
and a jury trial.

In August, Sephora agreed to pay $1.2 million to resolve claims by
the state of California that the company violated privacy law by
failing to disclose it was selling consumers' personal information.


Have you bought products from the Clean at Sephora program? Let us
know your thoughts on these allegations in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan &
Associates PC.

The Sephora class action lawsuit is Lindsey Finster, et al. v.
Sephora USA Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-01187-GLS-ML, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York. [GN]

SIDWELL AIR: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Roberts Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAKOTA ROBERTS and DAWN MARIE HACKER, Plaintiffs v.
SIDWELL AIR FREIGHT INC. and DHL EXPRESS (USA) INC., Defendants,
Case No. C21-5912 BHS (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Tacoma:

   a. grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
      for Conditional Certification; and

   b. denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Judicial Notice and
      Equitable Tolling without prejudice.

The matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Dakota Roberts and
Dawn Marie Hacker's (together "Roberts") Motion for Conditional
Certification and Judicial Notice and Equitable Tolling. Roberts
sued Defendants Sidwell and DHL arguing that they failed to pay him
and similarly situated employees overtime and failed to provide
paid rest breaks, in violation of federal and state law.

Roberts worked as a courier driver for Sidwell in Washington from
October 2016 to February 2021. DHL uses local delivery services,
including Sidwell, to deliver goods to customers.

Roberts asserts that all DHL-assigned courier drivers begin their
shifts early at their homes, drive first to a DHL ServicePoint, and
then begin their route. He further asserts that drivers are
regularly assigned to longer than 10-hour days, more than five days
per week, and are required to finish their assigned routes
regardless of their shift time. According to Roberts, this
frequently results in drivers working more than 40 hours per week
without overtime pay.He also asserts they are deprived of legally
mandated rest and meal breaks.

Roberts sued Sidwell and DHL in December 2021 on behalf of himself
and similarly situated employees.  He sued on behalf of a
collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), for failure to pay overtime wages. He also sued on
behalf of a class under Washington law for failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and willful refusal
to pay wages. He seeks damages, costs, and attorney's fees.

Roberts now seeks "conditional certification" of his collective
under the FLSA and Court approval of his proposed notice forms so
he can notify prospective collective members, allowing them a
chance to opt-in to the litigation. He also asks the Court to
equitably toll the limitations period for opt-in plaintiffs from
Sept. 11, 2022 -- 30 days after the motion was set for decision --
to the date of the Court's decision.

DHL and Sidwell oppose conditional certification, arguing that such
a mechanism is not expressly permitted under the FLSA, that it is
not in line with Supreme Court precedent, and that this Court
should instead supervise notice. They also argue that this Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over them as to the claims of potential
out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs under Bristol-Myers Squibb v.
Superior Ct. of Calif., 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017). They also oppose
conditional certification, arguing that Roberts failed to show a
common pay practice among prospective opt-in plaintiffs.

DHL further argues that Roberts lacks standing to assert FLSA
claims against it because it never employed Roberts. Finally, DHL
and Sidwell argue that Roberts has not established that equitable
tolling is appropriate.

Roberts replies that Bristol-Myers Squibb does not apply to FLSA
collective actions and therefore the Court does not lack personal
jurisdiction over the claims of outof-state opt-in plaintiffs. He
alternatively argues that the Court should wait to rule on personal
jurisdiction until out-of-state plaintiffs have opted in to avoid
issuing an advisory opinion. He further argues that it is too early
in the case for the Court to determine whether DHL and Sidwell
acted as joint employers because the parties have yet to engage in
discovery. Finally, he argues that equitable tolling is appropriate
to account for circumstances beyond the opt-in plaintiffs'
control.

At the outset, Judge Settle concludes that despite the lack of
binding guidance on the issue of conditional certification, the
two-step approach -- involving a plausibility-like standard for
conditional certification and a summary judgment standard for
decertification -- is followed by district courts in this circuit,
including this District. It is an appropriate case management
method and one that the Court will continue to follow absent
binding law stating otherwise.

Next, Judge Settle denies conditional certification as to the
potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for DHL and Sidwell outside
of Washington do not have claims "related to" the Defendants'
contacts with this state. He says Bristol-Myers Squibb applies to
FLSA collective actions thus the Court must have personal
jurisdiction over the Defendants as to each Plaintiff's claims
against them.

Judge Settle then agrees with Roberts that it is too early in this
litigation to make a final determination on whether DHL and Sidwell
acted as joint employers. Roberts has plausibly alleged that DHL
and Sidwell are joint employers. For example, he claims that
Sidwell employees working for DHL wear DHL-branded gear, drive
DHL-branded trucks, follow DHL policies, and use DHL scanners.
These allegations are sufficient at this stage to justify
conditional certification.

Judge Settle also grants Roberts' motion for conditional
certification as to potential opt-in plaintiffs who were employed
by DHL and Sidwell in Washington. He finds that Roberts has
plausibly alleged, and provided support for his argument, that
other Sidwell drivers used by DHL are similarly situated. He made
credible allegations in both his complaint, his motion, and in
supporting declarations that all Sidwell employees are subject to
the same working conditions, have the same job descriptions, and
are similarly expected to complete all routes for a daily wage,
regardless of how long it takes. Those allegations are supported by
job listings which show a daily rate of pay, rather than an hourly
rate, and which do not suggest any overtime wages are available.

As for the proposed notice forms, Judge Settle agrees with DHL and
Sidwell that they should have an opportunity to meet and confer
with Roberts regarding notice. Such a meeting benefits both the
parties and the Court. Therefore, the parties are directed to meet
and confer within 30 days of this Order and to draft a stipulated
notice form. To the extent the parties cannot agree, they will
submit to the Court a joint status report by Dec. 16, 2022,
explaining what the parties disagree on and each party's suggestion
for resolution.

Finally, Judge Settle denies Roberts' request for equitable tolling
because it is not warranted. Nevertheless, this ruling will not
prevent any opt-in plaintiff from raising an equitable tolling
argument based on their individual circumstances.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4677nmdw from Leagle.com.


SIERRA NEVADA MEMORIAL-MINERS: Lane Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sierra Nevada
Memorial-Miners Hospital. The case is styled as Pamela Laura Lane,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sierra Nevada
Memorial-Miners Hospital, Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2022-00329578-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov.
7, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited"

Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital is a hospital that offers many
services, including heart and vascular care, neurological care, and
cancer care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com


SKYWEST AIRLINES: Horowitz Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY HOROWITZ, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SKYWEST
AIRLINES, INC., a Utah Corporation; and DOES 1 Through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-04674-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of:

   "all SkyWest Airlines, Inc.'s California-based Pilots
   employed any time from March 22, 2017 to the present,
   including:

      First Meal Period Subclass:

      "Class Members who worked one or more periods in excess of
      5 hours;"

      Second Meal Period Subclass:

      "Class Members who worked one or more periods in excess of
      10 hours;"

      Rest Period Subclass:

      "Class Members who worked one or more periods in excess of
      3.5 hours;"

      Expense Reimbursement Subclass

      "Class Members who used personal cell phone business-
      related purposes;"

      Wage Statement Subclass”

      "Class Members who received one or more itemized wage
      statements during the one year preceding the filing of
      this Complaint;"

      Waiting Time Subclass:

      "Class Members whose employment ended any time during the
      three years before this Complaint was filed;"

      UCL Subclass:

      "Class Members who were subject to Defendants' unlawful
      business acts or practices;"

The Plaintiff also asks the court to enter order:

   1. Appointing named Plaintiff Gregory Horowitz as the
      representative of the Classes and the Subclasses, and
      appointing his counsel of record, Cohelan Khoury & Singer,
      and Davtyan Law Firm, Inc. as Class Counsel for the
      Classes and Subclasses;

   2. Finding Plaintiff Gregory Horowitz is typical of the
      proposed Class Members he seeks to represent and has no
      conflicts with serving as adequate and typical
      representative of the proposed Plaintiff Class and
      Subclasses he seeks to represent, and to appoint him as
      class representative pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
      23(a);

   3. Finding the proposed Class Notice to Plaintiff's Notice of
      Lodgment of Exhibits, sent via U.S. Mail by a reputable
      third-party administrator to each proposed Class Member is
      sufficient to give notice to the Class and an opportunity
      to exclude themselves from, or object to, the proceedings;
      and Ordering the notice be sent, and the results from the
      notice process be filed with the Court in a reasonable
      time after the Class is certified;

SkyWest Airlines is an American regional airline headquartered in
St. George, Utah, United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated Oct. 27,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UxvzkJat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiff Gregory Horowitz, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated and aggrieved are:

          Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Jeff Geraci, Esq.
          Rosemary C. Khoury, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: ikhoury@ckslaw.com
                  msinger@ckslaw.com
                  jgeraci@ckslaw.com
                  rkhoury@ckslaw.com

                - and

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN LAW FIRM, INC.
          880 E. Broadway
          Glendale, CA 91205
          Telephone: (818) 875-2008
          Facsimile: (818) 722-3974
          E-mail: support@davtyanlaw.com

SPENCER GIFTS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Spencer Gifts, known as
"Spencer's," agreed to a class action settlement to resolve claims
that it failed to prevent a 2021 data breach that compromised
employee information.

The settlement benefits individuals who received a notice that
their personal identifying information was compromised in the
Spencer Gifts data breach between Nov. 24 and 26, 2021.

Spencer Gifts is a novelty store that sells gag gifts, clothing,
decor, band merchandise and more.

According to a class action lawsuit, Spencer Gifts failed to
protect its current and former employees from a data breach in
2021. Plaintiffs in the case claim Spencers maintained private
employee information on a network that was vulnerable to cyber
attacks. Spencer Gifts allegedly knew that its systems were at risk
for a cyber attack but failed to take action to monitor and protect
employee data.

"Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because
of Defendant's negligent conduct since the Private Information that
Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data
thieves," the data breach class action lawsuit contends.

Plaintiffs in the case sought compensation from Spencer's for the
out-of-pocket expenses they incurred as a result of the data
breach.

Spencer Gifts hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve these allegations.

Under the terms of the Spencer's settlement, class members can
receive reimbursement for ordinary expenses, lost time and
extraordinary expenses incurred as a result of the breach. The
settlement allows for up to $500 in reimbursement for costs such as
bank fees, communication charges, postage, travel costs, credit
fees and up to three hours of lost time at a rate of $20 per hour.
Class members can collect up to $3,000 for extraordinary expenses,
such as unreimbursed monetary losses resulting from the data
breach.

Over 1,000 class members who lived in California when they received
a settlement notification can receive an additional $50 payment.
These payments will contribute towards the $500 cap for ordinary
data breach expenses.

All class members are eligible for two years of free credit
monitoring. Individuals who previously signed up for credit
monitoring offered by Spencer Gifts will have their services
automatically extended by two years.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Dec. 27, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the Spencer's settlement is
scheduled for Feb. 17, 2023.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Jan. 25, 2023.

Who's Eligible

Individuals who received a notice that their personal identifying
information was compromised in the Spencer Gifts data breach
between Nov. 24 and 26, 2021

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
Proof of purchase may include:

A copy of a bank or credit card statement or other proof of the
fees or charges
A copy of a bill from a telephone or mobile phone company or
internet service provider that shows charges, receipts, or other
proof or purchase of fees or charges
A copy of a receipt or other proof of purchase for each credit
report or product purchased

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

Claim Form Deadline
01/25/2023

Case Name
Gonshorowski v. Spencer Gifts LLC, Case No. ATL-L-000311-22, in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County

Final Hearing
02/17/2023

Settlement Website
SpencersSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Spencer's Settlement Administrator
c/o Postlethwaite & Netterville
PO Box 3314
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
info@SpencersSettlement.com
833-443-1115

Class Counsel
David Lietz
Gary Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC

Defense Counsel
Eric R Fish
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN]

SPIRIT AIRLINES: Wiretaps Spirit.com Website Visitors, Smidga Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MALINDA S. SMIDGA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-01578-MJH (W.D. Pa., Nov. 7, 2022) is a class action
brought against the Defendant for wiretapping the electronic
communications of visitors to its website, www.spirit.com in
violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Control Act.

Accordingly, Spirit procures third-party vendors, such as
FullStory, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code (Session
Replay Code) on Spirit's website, which then deploys on each
website visitor's internet browser for the purpose intercepting and
recording the website visitor's electronic communications with
Spirit's website, including their mouse movements, clicks,
keystrokes (such as text being entered into an information field or
text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or other electronic
communications in real-time (Website Communications). These
third-party vendors (collectively, Session Replay Providers) create
and deploy the Session Replay Code at Spirit's request, says the
suit.

The wiretapping facilitated by the Session Replay Codes is ongoing
during the visit and intercepts the contents of these
communications between Plaintiff and Spirit with instantaneous
transmissions to the Session Replay Provider, in which only 93
milliseconds were required to send a packet of event response data,
which would indicate whatever the website user had just done. After
intercepting and capturing the Website Communications, Spirit and
the Session Replay Providers use those Website Communications to
recreate website visitors' entire visit to www.spirit.com. The
Session Replay Providers create a video replay of the user's
behavior on the website and provide it to Spirit for analysis, the
suit alleges.

Spirit's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly
deploy the Session Replay Code allegedly results in the electronic
equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to
Spirit's website for the entire duration of their website
interaction.

Spirit is an airline whose planes serve more than ninety
destinations across the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
                  kelly@lcllp.com
                  jamisen@lcllp.com
                  elizabeth@lcllp.com
                  nickc@lcllp.com
                  patrick@lcllp.com

STAR ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Second Class Suit Over Non-Compliance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sameer Manekar, writing for Reuters, reports that Australian casino
operator Star Entertainment Group Ltd (SGR.AX) on Nov. 7 said it
faces a second class action lawsuit over allegations of failure to
comply with disclosure requirements regarding anti-money laundering
and counter-terrorism financing rules.

The class action, filed by law firm Maurice Blackburn, alleges that
between March 29, 2016 and March 16, 2022, Star made misleading
representations about its systems and processes for compliance with
anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing obligations,
Star said in a statement.

The lawsuit also accuses Star of failing to disclose relevant
information to the market and "conducted its affairs contrary to
the interests of the members of The Star as a whole", according to
the statement.

Star said it will defend itself against the class action, adding
that the claim was "substantially similar" to the class action
filed by another law firm Slater & Gordon (SGH.AX) in March earlier
this year.

The Brisbane-based casino firm's shares have dropped 19% in a year
marked with investigations and scrutiny of its operations over its
alleged failure to prevent money laundering and criminal activity.
[GN]

STERLING VALLEY: Rowe Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit W/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CONNOR ROWE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STERLING VALLEY SYSTEMS INC.
d/b/a/INNTOPIA, a Vermont corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-03608 (N.D. Cal.), Rowe files with Judge Maxine M. Chesney
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
a notice of dismissal of his Class Action Complaint against the
Defendant without prejudice as to the Plaintiff's individual
claims, and without prejudicing any claims of absent putative class
members.

Rowe states that dismissal is proper under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), as
the Defendant has not served its answer or a motion for summary
judgment in the action. A class has not been certified in the
action; thus, his voluntary dismissal does not implicate the
requirements of Rule 23(e).

Additionally, pursuant to the Court's Chamber Rules, the dismissal
would not prejudice the absent putative Class Members. There is no
evidence the case has been widely publicized or that any putative
class members are relying on the action. The data breach and
phishing scheme that is described within the Complaint also
occurred in November of 2021 and was only detected in February of
2022. Accordingly, the putative class members have approximately a
year and a half to bring tort-based claims and three and a half
years to bring any contract-based claims. These claims may be
subject to equitable tolling since the date the putative class
action complaint was filed. There is sufficient time to bring an
action, if necessary.

Finally, the Plaintiff has not made any concessions of the class
interests. As noted, the dismissal is without prejudice and absent
class members will maintain their legal rights. Additionally, data
breach cases are known for their difficult in certifying.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's dismissal should not be seen as the
result of any potentially self-interested action.

Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff may
notice dismissal of the case, without leave of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4jawkm7j from Leagle.com.

John J. Nelson -- jnelson@milberg.com -- Milberg Coleman Bryson
Phillips Grossman, PLLC, Beverly Hills, CA, Counsel for the
Plaintiff and the Putative Class.


SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss COVID Refund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction in the lawsuit titled IN RE: SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY
COVID REFUND LITIGATION, Case No. 20-10985-WGY (D. Mass.).

Suffolk University's motion was filed in response to the Court's
Oct. 11, 2022 Order.

The decision turned on whether the Court "concluded as a legal
determination that the plaintiff's claims did not -- and never did
-- constitute an actual or potential class action," Rovinelli v.
Trans World Ent. Corp., No. CV 19-11304-DPW, 2021 WL 752822, at
*16.

The Court says it made no such legal determination in its Oct. 11,
2022 Order. Judge Young opines that Suffolk boldly interpreted the
Court's order to have found that the Plaintiffs could have never
mustered a class that would meet Rule 23's requirements by quoting
direct language from Rovinelli and not from the actual language in
the Court's Order.

The Court made no such legal determination in its order denying
class certification. Unlike Rovinelli, subject matter jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") was present at
the time of filing because the Court never made a determination
from the outset that a class could never be potentially certified.

Finally, denial of class action certification does not divest the
Court's subject matter jurisdiction because "CAFA does not
specifically address whether a district court may retain
jurisdiction following the denial of class certification," Judge
Young opines, citing Metz v. Unizan Bank, 649 F.3d 492, 500 (6th
Cir. 2011), et al.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/52hzujtj from Leagle.com.


TEK ONE LLC: Brito Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tek One, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Osvaldo Brito, on behalf of Himself and all
others similarly situated v. Tek One, LLC. Steven Pacella, Case No.
2277CV00907 (Mass. Super. Ct., Essex Cty., Sept. 23, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."

Tek One -- https://tekonesolutions.com/ -- focuses on all facets of
the low voltage industry with a heavy emphasis on AV, Structured
cabling, Access Control, CCTV/Security, IT & Fiber Optics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          50 Congress St.
          Boston, MA 02109

TEKBERRY INC: Faces Esau Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
TUUMAMAO ESAU JR. II, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEKBERRY, INC.; BLOOM ENERGY
CORPORATION; and DOES through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22CV405682 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Oct. 31, 2022) alleges
that Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour
violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have increased their profits
by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: (a)
failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime
wages); (b) failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation
in lieu thereof; (c) failing to authorize or permit lawful rest
breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; (d) failing to
reimburse necessary business-related costs; (e) failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; (f) failing to pay wages timely
during employment; and (g) failing to pay all wages due upon
separation of employment.

The Plaintiff and other California residents are employed by the
Defendants as non-exempt employees throughout California.

Tekberry, Inc. is a Santa Rosa, California-based workforce
solutions company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC  
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: icampbell@aegis13wfirm.com

TELEXFREE INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:14-md-02566 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Timothy S.
Hillman entered an order scheduling order:

  -- Requests for production of              Jan. 6, 2023
     documents and interrogatories
     served by:

  -- Requests for admissions served by:      Feb. 17, 2023

  -- Fact Discovery to be completed by:      March 31, 2023

  -- The Plaintiffs' trial experts must      March 10, 2023
     be designated by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' trial experts must      April 21, 2023
     be deposed by:

  -- The Defendants' trial experts must      April 7, 2023
     be designated by:

  -- The Defendants' trial experts must      May 12, 2023
     be deposed by:

  -- Dispositive Motions due by:             June 30, 2023

  -- All motions for class certification     June 30, 2023
     due by:

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]

TORRID HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a
class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased
Torrid Holdings Inc. (NYSE: CURV) common stock in or traceable to
the Company's July 2021 initial public offering ("IPO") for
remedies pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933. Torrid is a
direct-to-consumer brand of women's plus-size apparel and
intimates.

What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Torrid. Shareholders who
want to be appointed lead plaintiff for the class must file their
papers by January 14, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. For more information, click here.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

What is this Case About: Torrid Holdings Inc. (CURV) Issued a
Materially False and Misleading Registration Statement in Support
of its IPO

According to the complaint, leading up to the IPO, Torrid claimed
to be experiencing rapid sales growth and an impressive recovery
following a temporary downturn in the face of the initial phases of
the COVID-19 pandemic. In its IPO, Torrid sold 12.65 million shares
at $21 per share, generating $265 million in proceeds. However, all
of the shares sold were by Torrid insiders and none of the proceeds
went to the Company.

In connection with the IPO, defendants failed to disclose that in
the first half of 2021 Torrid had experienced a temporary surge in
demand as a result of changed consumer behaviors in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic and government stimulus and that such ephemeral
demand trends had dissipated and were not internally projected to
continue following the IPO. Further, Torrid was suffering from
severe supply chain disruptions caused by the emergence of the
Delta variant of COVID-19, which had first emerged in May 2021, and
was running materially below historical inventory levels as a
result, and therefore, had insufficient inventory to meet expected
consumer demand for its fiscal third quarter of 2021. This late
inventory arrival materially impaired the Company from effectively
matching consumer buying trends, creating an undisclosed risk of
increased markdowns and promotional activities necessary to sell
undesirable inventory. Finally, defendants failed to disclose that
Torrid's CFO planned to retire shortly after the IPO.

By the end of September 2022, the price of Torrid stock fell to a
low of just $4.06 per share, over 80% below the IPO price.


                       About Robbins LLP

A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys
and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against
Torrid Holdings Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when
corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watc.

Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

TOYOTA MOTOR: Perez Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 22, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jose Javier Perez v.
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. et al. Case No.
2:22-cv-00780-ODW-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II
entered an order:

   1. striking Perez's motion for failure to meet the
      requirements of Local Rule 7-3;

   2. extending the deadline for Perez to file a motion for
      class certification to February 22, 2023;

   3. directing the parties to file a stipulated briefing
      schedule based on that filing deadline.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. retail and sells new and used
automotive.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3g04Le7at no extra charge.[CC]

TRANSAMERICA LIFE: BOAGF Sues Over Unfair Life Insurance Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BOAGF Holdco LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-07859 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2022) is a
class action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly situated
owners of Transamerica universal life insurance policies, seeking
to represent a class of Transamerica policyholders who have been
subjected to an unlawful and excessive monthly deduction rate (MDR)
increase.

According to the complaint, the MDR increase and conduct by
Transamerica that preceded it have materially breached the polices
in several respects, including but not limited to a) not
determining Monthly Deduction Rates based on the factors enumerated
in the contract that Transamerica claimed the increase was based
on; and b) imposing a massive increase in Monthly Deduction Rates
to recoup past losses.

As a direct result of Transamerica's actions, Class Members are
faced with the imminent harm of either paying the exorbitant and
unjustified new charges, or losing the benefits for which they have
dutifully paid premiums for many years, says the suit.

Plaintiff BOAGF Holdco LP, is a Delaware limited partnership, whose
99% partner is BlackOak Alpha Growth Fund in Cayman. The Plaintiff
is the owner of a TransUltra 115 universal life insurance policy
issued by Transamerica Occidental in California on or about
December 11, 1997.

Transamerica Life Insurance Company is an American holding company
for various life insurance companies and investment firms operating
primarily in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Michael Gervais, Esq.
          Glenn Bridgman, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  mgervais@susmangodfrey.com
                  gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Seth Ard, Esq.
          Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com
                  rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com

TRANSDEV SERVICES: Filing of Class Status Bid Due April 21, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAUENGA M. HAKEEM, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. TRANSDEV
SERVICES, INC.; TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TRANSDEV; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01077-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order granting the Parties'
joint stipulation to continue class certification dates as
follows:

   1. Plaintiff's deadline to file a          April 21, 2023
      motion for class certification
      will be:

   2. Defendants' deadline to file their      May 19, 2023
      class certification opposition will
      be:

   3. The Plaintiff's deadline to file her    June 16, 2023
      reply will be:

   4. The March 28, 2023 hearing date for     July 11, 2023
      class certification is hereby vacated
      or reset as follow:

   5. A further Case Management Conference    February 9, 2023
      is set for:

Transdev provides passenger transportation services.

A copy of the Court's orderdated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tta1dgat no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiff CHAUENGA M. HAKEEM, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated are:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq
          N. Nick Ebrahimian, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Courtney M. Miller, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                 nebrahimian@lelawfirm.com
                 vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                 cmiller@lelawfirm.com

                - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          10 Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          Email: sahagii@aol.com

The Attorneys for Defendants TRANSDEV SERVICES INC.; TRANSDEV
14 NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and TRANSDEV are:

          Kathy M. Huynh, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          1999 Harrison St., Suite 700
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 768-0650
          Facsimile: (510) 768-0651
          E-mail: Kathy.Huynh@huschblackwell.com

                - and -

          Kaytlin E. Kopen, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 480-1500
          E-mail:Kayt.Kopen@huschblackwell.com

                - and -

          Michael D. Hayes, Esq
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 655-1500
          E-mail: Michael.Hayes@huschblackwell.com

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Court Narrows Claims in Rand Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER RAND,
individually and on behalf of a class similarly situated, v. THE
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 7:21-cv-10744-VB (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order granting in
part and denying in part Travelers's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

The Plaintiff Jennifer Rand brings this putative class action
against Travelers, arising out of Travelers's disclosure of
plaintiff's personal identifying information ("PII") to non-party
cybercriminals. Plaintiff asserts claims under the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act (the "DPPA") and Section 349 of the New York State
General Business Law, as well as state law claims for negligence
and negligence per se.

The Plaintiff alleges Travelers designed its website to ensure
agents could generate insurance quotes for consumers as seamlessly
as possible through a "'shortcut' process."

Specifically, plaintiff contends an agent seeking to generate a
quote for an individual consumer could do so by providing only
"minimal information" about the consumer, such as a name, address,
and date of birth.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TyynNkat no extra charge.[CC]

U.S. FINANCIAL: Law Firms Feud Over Class Action Settlement Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Schwartz, writing for Richmond Bizsense, reports that a
Richmond law firm that's used to fighting to win money for its
clients is battling for a payday of its own.

Geoff McDonald & Associates, a local personal injury firm with 14
attorneys, is embroiled in a lawsuit with Beasley Allen, a much
larger firm from Alabama.

Filed initially in Henrico County Circuit Court and now playing out
in federal court in Richmond, the case centers on fees awarded from
a big-dollar class action litigation settlement dating back to
2017.

GMA claims it had teamed with Beasley Allen on the case, which
involved class claims against U.S. Financial Life Insurance Co. in
federal court in Ohio, and that both sides had a pact to share any
resulting attorney fees evenly.

Once a settlement was reached in the case, attorneys fees were
eventually awarded in 2021 to the tune of $4.6 million.

GMA says it was entitled to 45 percent of that, which amounts to $2
million. However, it alleges Beasley elbowed GMA out of the case to
keep the fees for itself.

"The pleadings in that case reflect that GMA and Beasley Allen were
co-counsel in the USFL Litigation up until the point where the case
had been settled and Beasley Allen then, on its own, and without
the knowledge or consent of GMA, removed GMA from the pleadings as
co-counsel in order to try to improperly capture all of the fees,"
the suit alleges.

GMA claims it has made a demand for the fee payment, which Beasley
Allen has refused.

"This money was wrongly taken by Beasley Allen in breach of their
agreement with GMA," the lawsuit alleges.

This isn't the first time the two law firms have butted heads over
class action legal fees, according to the 13-page lawsuit filed
Oct. 11.

The fee agreement between them originated in 2015. That was after
GMA namesake Geoff McDonald, a UVA grad who founded his firm in
Richmond 30 years ago, had a close relationship with Gibson Vance,
a senior partner at Beasley Allen, in which they would refer cases
to one another.

GMA claims that in 2015 it got a lead to take on class action
claims in another large insurance fraud case and brought Beasley
Allen in to team together.

GMA claims they made a verbal agreement to work together and split
the fees on the initial case and any such cases in the future.

They worked the first such case together, winning an award for the
class and $8 million in fees for the attorneys. However, according
to GMA's latest lawsuit, it claims Beasley Allen tried to prevent
GMA from getting its 35.8 percent share in that first case. A court
battle in Maryland resolved that issue in GMA's favor, the suit
claims.

In this new dispute over the separate USFL case, GMA claims the fee
arrangement was to have been identical to that previous case. To
date, Beasley Allen has only sent GMA a check for $61,000 for the
USFL case.

GMA alleges two counts of breach of oral agreement and conversion,
asking a judge to award it the $2 million plus interest.

GMA is represented by attorney Bill Bayliss of Williams Mullen.

Beasley Allen is represented by Richmond attorney Edward Bagnell of
Spotts Fain.

Neither Bagnell nor Bayliss returned a call seeking comment.

Beasley Allen has called for the suit to be dismissed, mainly on
the grounds that the case doesn't belong in federal court in
Richmond due to the dispute arising in federal court in Ohio. It
also cites a fees dispute clause from the case in Ohio and argues
at the very least the case should be transferred back to Ohio for
the judge there to hear GMA's argument.

Judge Roderick Young is presiding over the case in Richmond federal
court. [GN]

ULTA BEAUTY: District Court Orders Hansber & Moreno to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAHARA HANSBER, NANG CHAN, and JESUS MORENO, on
behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public, Plaintiffs v. ULTA BEAUTY COSMETICS, LLC;
and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00022-AWI-CDB (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California grants in part and denies in part
UBC's Motion to Compel Individual Arbitrations of Hansber and
Moreno and Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Ruling on Motions and
Completion of Arbitrations.

The named Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit against Ulta
Beauty Cosmetics ("UBC"), alleging violations of California's
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Labor Code, and Business &
Professions Code.

Hansber is a former employee of Exact Staff Inc., and Moreno is a
former employee of Spherion Staffing LLC. Both Hansber and Moreno
signed arbitration agreements at the start of their employment to
submit all claims and controversies arising from their employment
to individual arbitration.

UBC entered into separate staffing services agreements with Exact
and Spherion, pursuant to which Exact and Spherion agreed to
recruit, screen, and hire workers who would be assigned to work at
Ulta Inc.'s distribution center in Fresno, California ("Fresno
DC"). Both Hansber and Moreno were placed on work assignments at
the Fresno DC. Chan also worked at the Fresno DC, but unlike
Hansber and Moreno, Chan applied to, interviewed with, and was
hired by UBC without entering into an arbitration agreement.

On Nov. 4, 2020, Hansber, Moreno, and Chan filed a First Amended
Class Action Complaint against UBC and Spherion in Kern County
Superior Court, alleging violations of California's Labor Code,
PAGA, and Business & Professions Code. On Jan. 5, 2021, Spherion
removed the matter to the Court pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

On March 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
which dropped Spherion and left UBC as the sole Defendant. On April
18, 2021, UBC filed a motion to dismiss and/or strike the Second
Amended Complaint, which the Court granted in part and denied in
part.

On Nov. 2, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended
Complaint, alleging eight cause of action against UBC for (1)
failure to pay all straight time wages; (2) failure to pay all
overtime wages: (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to
authorize and permit rest periods; (5) knowing and intentional
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failure
to pay all wages upon termination or separation; (7) unfair
competition; and (8) civil penalties under the PAGA.

On Dec. 17, 2021, UBC filed a motion to join Exact and Spherion as
necessary parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a), which ultimately was
denied. On Aug. 12, 2022, UBC filed the instant motions to compel
individual arbitrations of Hansber and Moreno and to stay all
proceedings pending the rulings on the motions and completion of
arbitrations.

The parties do not dispute that Hansber and Moreno entered into
agreements to arbitrate with Exact and Spherion, respectively.
Neither do the parties dispute that the FAA applies to the above
agreements or that UBC may enforce them despite being a
nonsignatory. However, the parties disagree as to whether UBC
waived its right to arbitration, and if not, whether Hansber and
Moreno's representative PAGA claims and all of Chan's claims should
be stayed pending the arbitrations of Hansber and Moreno's
individual claims.

Based on UBC's litigation conduct, Judge Ishii finds that UBC did
not waive its right to arbitration. He says the Plaintiffs did not
satisfy their "heavy burden of proof" to warrant a finding of
waiver. UBC's acts indicate that it did not act inconsistent with
its right to arbitration. Accordingly, because UBC's actions were
not inconsistent with its right to individually arbitrate Hansber
and Moreno's claims, UBC did not waive its right to arbitrate.
Given that the Plaintiffs do not dispute that Hansber and Moreno
signed arbitration agreements encompassing their claims against
UBC, nor dispute that UBC may enforce them, Judge Ishii grants
UBC's motions to compel individual arbitrations of Hansber and
Moreno's claims.

Next, Judge Ishii holds that because Hansber and Moreno's
individual PAGA claims are compelled to arbitration, they lack
statutory standing to maintain their remaining non-individual PAGA
claims in court; therefore, those remaining claims must be
dismissed. He is also disinclined to stay the statutory standing
issue pending the California Supreme Court's decision in Adolph v.
Uber Technologies, Inc., Cal. S. Ct. Docket No. G059860. Despite
the Plaintiffs' contention that the California Supreme Court is
expected to clarify the PAGA standing issue in Adolph, he says the
Supreme Court's decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana,
142 S.Ct. 1906 (2022) is on point in this matter, and the Court has
no assurances of when Adolph will be decided.

Finally, Judge Ishii finds that a stay of Chan's claims is not
warranted. He states that proceeding with the litigation as to
Chan's claims would not result in a waste of judicial resources. If
the Court stays the entire litigation and allows Hansber and
Moreno's individual arbitrations to first proceed to completion, it
is unclear what preclusive effect the arbitrations would have on
Chan's claims. UBC's motion to stay the litigation of Chan's claims
pending the competition of Hansber and Moreno's arbitrations must
be denied.

Accordingly, Judge Ishii grants the Defendant's motions to compel
individual arbitrations of Hansber and Moreno and its motion to
dismiss Hansber and Moreno's non-individual PAGA claims for lack of
statutory standing. He overrules the Defendant's evidentiary
objections to portions of Declaration of Nang Chan. He also denies
the Defendant's motion to stay all remaining proceedings in this
case pending the completion of Hansber and Moreno's individual
arbitrations. Hansber and Moreno are ordered to arbitration with
UBC forthwith in accordance with their respective arbitration
agreements.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2trz6a4z from Leagle.com.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Faces Camenisch Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2022, that a
civil class action lawsuit captioned "Camenisch et al v. Umpqua
Bank," was filed on August 21, 2020, on behalf of a class of
investor victims of decedent Kenneth J. Casey and a Ponzi scheme he
effectuated through his companies Professional Financial Investors,
Inc. or Professional Investors Security Fund, Inc.

Plaintiffs claim that the companies banked with the Bank and,
therefore, the Bank allegedly knew that Mr. Casey was defrauding
investors. The plaintiffs' claims against the Bank include aiding
and abetting fraud and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty. The cases followed an SEC non-public investigation into this
matter on May 28, 2020.

Umpqua Holdings Corporation is an Oregon corporation and the
financial holding company of Umpqua Bank.


UNITED STATES: Settlement in Student Debt Relief Suit Gets Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
highereddive.com reports that a federal judge approved a massive
class-action settlement intended to address allegations the U.S.
Department of Education stonewalled hundreds of thousands of
applications to a program that cancels student loan debts for
borrowers whose colleges misled them.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup signed off on the agreement after
taking a week to weigh final arguments in the three-year-old Sweet
v. Cardona case. The case is about student debt relief that can be
granted under the borrower defense to repayment program, which is
separate from President Joe Biden's wide-ranging initiative
forgiving up to $10,000 or $20,000 in federal student loan debt for
some 40 million borrowers -- a $430 billion initiative that is tied
up in different court cases.

Alsup's decision sets the stage for the Education Department to
automatically cancel debts for about 200,000 borrowers who attended
151 colleges, including shuttered large for-profit chains like ITT
Technical Institute and still-operating institutions like Grand
Canyon University. That would clear a total of about $6 billion in
federal student loan debt.

The settlement agreement also calls for the Education Department to
quickly make borrower defense to repayment decisions on debt
cancellation for another 64,000 borrowers -- or to discharge their
debts if a decision can't be reached within specific timeframes
based on how long they've been awaiting a ruling. This is projected
to result in $1.5 billion in loans being cleared.

Another part of the agreement requires the department to smooth
borrower defense applications for those who applied to the program
after the settlement agreement was reached. Automatic relief will
be granted for those borrowers, who number about 179,000, if the
Education Department doesn't decide on their applications within
three years of the settlement's approval.

"This settlement is not only fair, reasonable, and adequate but a
grand slam home run for class members," Alsup wrote in an order
approving the deal. "They originally sued just to get a decision
one way or another on their applications. Now, they are getting
total forgiveness in most cases."

Four institutions and college operators whose former students are
covered under the deal opposed it: American National University,
Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Everglades College and
Lincoln Educational Services Corp. They are on the list of 151
colleges whose former students can receive automatic forgiveness,
and they argued their inclusion denied them due process and damaged
their reputations.

An appeal to the judge's approval is likely, according to a
statement issued by a trade group representing for-profit colleges,
Career Education Colleges and Universities.

"The four intervenor schools made a compelling case that the Sweet
settlement represents an unlawful overreach by the Department of
Education and unfairly maligns over 150 institutions without any
opportunity to respond," Jason Altmire, CECU president and CEO,
said in a statement. "We expect that the Ninth Circuit on appeal
will recognize these fatal flaws and send the parties back to the
negotiating table."

Alsup addressed the colleges' objections in his order approving the
settlement.

The deal does not use standard borrower defense to repayment
procedures, and the Education Department therefore can't use it as
a basis to try to recoup loan discharge costs from the 151
institutions on the automatic debt relief list, he wrote.
Institutions on the list would still have full due process rights
if the Education Department were to take action against them in the
future. And Alsup dismissed the idea that being included on the
list of 151 colleges is "an impermissible scarlet letter."

"This order finds the list does not carry the necessary legal
significance to justify denying final approval of the settlement,"
he wrote.

The Project on Predatory Student Lending, which represented the
plaintiffs in the case, cheered the judge's decision.

"Throughout this case, our clients exposed a fundamentally broken
borrower defense system and the urgent need for reforms to hold
predatory schools accountable," Eileen Connor, president and
director of the organization, said in a statement. "We are proud
that this settlement with the Department of Education will help
chart a more fair and accountable process for borrowers." [GN]

US BANCORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Polished.com, Inc.
(NYSEAmerican: POL), US Bancorp (NYSE: USB), and FIGS, Inc. (NYSE:
FIGS). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each
case can be found at the link provided.

Polished.com, Inc. (NYSEAmerican: POL)

Class Period: July 27, 2020 - August 25, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 30, 2022

According to the lawsuit, the registration statement supporting the
IPO was false and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company would restate certain financials; (2) the Company's
internal controls were inadequate; (3) the Company downplayed and
obfuscated its internal controls issues; (4) as a result, the
Company would engage in an independent investigation; (5) as a
result of the investigation, the Company would, among other things,
retain independent counsel and consultants, and delay its quarterly
filings in violation of NYSE requirements of listing; (6) following
the commencement of the investigation, the Company's CEO and CFO
would leave the Company; and (7) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. Also according to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the
Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company's internal controls were
inadequate; (2) the Company downplayed and obfuscated its internal
controls issues; (3) the Company did not properly construct or
remediate its inadequate and ineffective internal controls; (4)
contrary to the Company's statements, the Company was not
remediating its internal controls; (5) as a result, the Company
would engage in an independent investigation; (6) as a result of
the investigation, the Company would, among other things, retain
independent counsel and consultants, and delay its quarterly
filings in violation of NYSE requirements of listing; (7) following
the commencement of the investigation, the Company's CEO and CFO
would leave the Company; and (8) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

For more information on the Polished class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/POL

US Bancorp (NYSE: USB)

Class Period: August 1, 2019 - July 28, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 27, 2022

U.S. Bancorp ("Company") is a Delaware company headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. U.S. Bancorp provides a full range of
financial services, including lending and depository services, cash
management, capital markets, and trust and investment management
services. It also engages in credit card services, merchant and ATM
processing, mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, and leasing.
U.S. Bancorp's banking subsidiary, U.S. Bank National Association
("U.S. Bank"), is engaged in the general banking business,
principally in domestic markets. U.S. Bancorp is the publicly
traded parent company of U.S. Bank.

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

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

On this news, the price of U.S. Bancorp stock declined 4% to close
at $46.12 on July 28, 2022.

As a result of 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.

For more information on the US Bancorp class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/USB

FIGS, Inc. (NYSE: FIGS)

Class Period: May 27, 2021 - May 12, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 2, 2023

FIGS, Inc. operates as a direct-to-consumer healthcare apparel and
lifestyle company in the United States. Best known for its medical
scrubs, it also designs and sells other healthcare apparel, such as
lab coats, under scrubs, outerwear, activewear, loungewear,
compression socks footwear, and masks.

On June 1, 2021, FIGS announced the closing of its IPO. Defendants
offered shares at $22 per share. Leading up to the IPO and during
the Class Period, defendants: (i) inflated the Company's true
ability to successfully secure repeat customers; (ii) failed to
disclose the Company's increasing dependence on air freight; and
(iii) inflated the expected net revenues, gross margin, and
adjusted EBITDA margin for 2022.

The Registration Statement claimed that due to the Company's access
to significant customer data, it was able to maintain an efficient
and steady supply chain. The truth was, however, that the Company's
access to data did not allow it to mitigate supply chain problems
through predictable sales. Instead, FIGS had to increasingly rely
on air freight that costs materially more than the overseas
shipping it was previously reliant on. The Registration Statement
blamed the COVID-19 pandemic for the use of air freight in the time
leading up to the IPO. The truth, was, however, that FIGS was
continually relying on air freight for its business. Even after the
IPO, as the Company continued to rely on cost air freight, the
defendants continued to claim that air freight was transitory. For
example, defendants stated that the use of air freight was at its
"peak" during the fourth quarter of 2021, and that "we're pretty
confident that we're going to see less airfreight overall than
we're seeing it in [the fourth quarter] as we get into [2022]."

On May 12, 2022, the Company announced disappointing results and
slashed its expected sales, gross margin, and adjusted earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA")
because of these "supply chain" issues. FIGS also admitted that not
only did they continue to rely on air freight during the first
quarter of 2022, but that "[f]or the rest of the year, we plan to
significantly increase our use of airfreight to reduce our exposure
to these unpredictable transit times." On this news, the Company's
stock price fell $3.21 per share, approximately 25%, to just $9.64
per share.

For more information on the FIGS class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/FIGS

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

VINTAGE WINE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 13, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Vintage Wine Estates, Inc.
("Vintage Wine" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VWE) securities between
October 13, 2021 and September 13, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Vintage Wines investors have until January 13, 2023 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Announces the Filing of a
Securities Class Action on Behalf of Vintage Wine Estates, Inc.
(VWE) Investors

On September 13, 2022, Vintage Wine announced its financial results
for fiscal year 2022. In its press release, the Company stated that
it "recorded $19.1 million in non-cash inventory adjustments
identified through efforts t[o] improve and strengthen inventory
management, processes and reporting." The Company also stated that
"the [fourth] quarter included approximately $6.8 million in
overhead burden that was related to the first and second quarter of
fiscal 2022, but not material to the respective periods."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.23, or 40.3%, to
close at $3.30 per share on September 14, 2022, on unusually high
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that, due to a material weakness related to its
inventory controls and procedures, the Company lacked a reasonable
basis to report inventory metrics; (2) that the Company understated
its overhead burden in certain quarters, thereby overstating its
adjusted EBITDA; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Vintage
Wine was reasonably likely to incur significant charges to restate
prior reporting; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased Vintage Wine securities during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than January 13, 2023 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased Vintage Wine securities, have information
or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

WASHINGTON: District Court Narrows Claims in Sterling v. Feek
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David G. Estudillo of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma, grants in part and denies in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled DAMARIO
RASHEED STERLING, et al., Plaintiffs v. CAMI L. FEEK, Commissioner,
Washington State Employment Security Department, in her individual
capacity, and in her official capacity, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-05250 (W.D. Wash.).

The Court finds and orders that as to Plaintiffs David Sherwood
Johnson, Robert Erickson, Lauren Colas, Alexander Juarez, and Lori
Alexander, the Defendant's motion to dismiss their 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 claim(s) is granted. The Plaintiffs are granted leave
to amend if they believe they can cure the deficiencies related to
these Plaintiffs' failure to allege the deprivation of a property
interest. In such instance, their remaining claims would be the
same as those of Plaintiffs Damario Rasheed Sterling and Elizabeth
Ecklund.

As to Plaintiffs Sterling and Elizabeth Ecklund, the Defendant's
motion to dismiss (i) their 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim based on
the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause is denied; (ii) their
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim(s) based on qualified immunity is
denied without prejudice; (iii) their 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim
based on the 42 U.S.C. Section 503(a)(3) is denied without
prejudice; and (iv) their 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim based on the
42 U.S.C. Section 503(a)(1) is granted.

Washington State's unemployment benefits system is administered by
the Washington Employment Security Department ("ESD" or the
"Agency"). Defendant Cami Feek became the ESD acting Commissioner
on Feb. 1, 2021, and the actual Commissioner on June 9, 2021. In
2018, ESD began using the Unemployment Tax and Benefits System
("UTAB"), an automated computer program that stores data on claims,
claimants, employers, and other information for managing and paying
benefits.

When an individual in Washington State applies for unemployment
benefits, ESD issues a Notice of Monetary Determination stating
whether the individual is eligible for unemployment compensation.

Under Washington law, an individual, who is paid any amount as
benefits to which he or she is not entitled, will be liable for
repayment of the amount overpaid. Applying guidance from the United
States Department of Labor, if ESD finds that it has overpaid a
claimant, before applying an offset, it must notify the claimant,
send the claimant a determination of overpayment and a notice of
appeal rights, and afford the claimant an opportunity to be heard.

The Plaintiffs allege that they face an imminent threat of
deprivation of their constitutionally protected property interests.
They contend that absent relief, the Defendant will continue to
send untimely redetermination letters and attempt to collect
overpayments that they do not actually owe. They contend that the
Defendant knew or should have known that she was causing unlawful
unemployment determinations through constitutionally deficient form
correspondence, unlawful automatic redeterminations based on
non-responses to information requests and untimely redeterminations
that violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

The Plaintiffs have filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, alleging that the Defendant has violated their rights
pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by
depriving them of a constitutionally protected property interest
without adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard. They further
allege that the Defendant has violated their right to a fair
hearing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 503(a)(3) and their right to
a timely determination under 42 U.S.C. Section 503(a)(1). They also
make class action allegations. The Court has not certified the
class.

The Defendant does not dispute that the Plaintiffs have
successfully alleged a property interest in those unemployment
benefits to which they are entitled under Washington state law.
Instead, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs have not
sufficiently alleged a deprivation of that property interest
because they either successfully appealed ESD's redetermination
decision or have pending appeals. The Defendant further argues
that, except for Sterling, ESD did not attempt to recoup any
alleged overpayments either before or after the Plaintiffs'
appeals, and that an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") ultimately
ruled in Sterling's favor.

Judge Estudillo finds that Sterling and Ecklund both successfully
allege they were improperly deprived of unemployment benefits. None
of the remaining Plaintiffs, however, have alleged an actual
deprivation of their unemployment benefits, via offset or
otherwise. The remaining Plaintiffs instead contend that the
redetermination letters themselves constitute at least a temporary
or partial deprivation of a property interest like the prejudgment
attachment of property seen in Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 12
(1991).

As to the remaining Plaintiffs, Judge Estudillo finds the Amended
Complaint makes no allegation that ESD failed to deliver
unemployment benefits to them, that ESD improperly offset their
unemployment benefits payments, or that have been or will be denied
future unemployment benefits. In short, the Amended Complaint fails
to identify how the remaining Plaintiffs were deprived of a
property interest, i.e., an unemployment benefit.

As the Court concludes only Sterling and Ecklund asserted a
deprivation of a property interest, only their claims are subject
to the three-part balancing test. Judge Estudillo holds that, as
alleged, ESD's procedure for assessing overpayments and hearing
appeals as to Sterling and its procedures for approving
unemployment benefits as to Ecklund were inadequate.

Based on all of the foregoing, the Court finds and concludes that
Sterling and Ecklund have alleged a Section 1983 claims based on
the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

The Court also denies without prejudice the motion to dismiss on
the basis of qualified immunity and the factual assertion that the
Defendant did not cause the constitutional property deprivation at
issue. The Court will consider these specific defenses at the
summary judgment stage, when it will have the benefit of a
developed factual record. The Court declines at this stage to take
judicial notice of social media profiles, news articles, and video
testimony contained in the Plaintiffs' Response.

The Court declines to rule on the question of damages at this
stage. The Court finds that the issue of damages is more
appropriately addressed on summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ye26vmyf from Leagle.com.


WATER WIPES: Faces Lopez Suit Over Water Wipes' Deceptive Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ELENA LOPEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself, the general
public and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WATER WIPES
(USA), INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-06659-LB (N.D. Cal., Oct.
28, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for fraud, deceit
and/or misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation; unjust
enrichment; violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act and the Business and Professions Code; "greenwashing" under the
Environmental Marketing Claims Act; and unfair, unlawful and
deceptive trade practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendant deceptively advertises
and markets its "Water Wipes" brand wipes as "100% biodegradable."
The Defendant informs consumers to "dispose of wipes as per local
guidelines." Further, it claims on the back of the product
packaging that the Water Wipes will "biodegrade[] in four weeks."
The Defendant charges a premium for these wipes, as compared to
other wipes that are not marketed as "100% biodegradable." Despite
the unqualified biodegradable claim on the label, however, the
wipes will not completely break down and return to nature within a
reasonably short period of time (let alone four weeks) after
customary disposal in landfills, says the suit.

This action seeks: (i) to require Defendant to pay restitution and
damages to purchasers of the Water Wipes of the price premium paid
for the wipes, i.e., the difference between the price Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers paid for the wipes and the price that
they would have paid but for Defendant's misrepresentation, in an
amount to be proven at trial using econometric or statistical
techniques, such as hedonic regression or conjoint analysis; and
(ii) an injunction precluding the sale of the wipes within a
reasonable time after entry of judgment, unless the wipes'
packaging and marketing is modified to remove the "100%
biodegradable" and "biodegrades in four weeks" misrepresentations,
the suit asserts.

Water Wipes (USA), Inc. manufactures and markets Water Wipes brand
baby wipes and adult sensitive wipes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie McCrary, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 271-6469
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469

WATTS UP SOLAR: Heidarpour Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Watts Up Solar LLC.
The case is styled as Fred Heidarpour, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Watts Up Solar LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-01910-JZB (D. Ariz., Nov. 8, 2022).

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

Watts Up Solar -- https://wattsupsolaraz.com/ -- is comprised of a
network of solar and energy experts with dozens of years of
experience in renewable energy resources.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penny L. Koepke, Esq.
          MAXWELL & MORGAN PC
          Pierpont Commerce Center
          4854 E Baseline Rd., Ste. 104
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Phone: (480) 833-1001
          Fax: (480) 969-8267
          Email: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz


WELLS FARGO: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in California Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2022, that in
October and November 2020, plaintiffs filed two putative securities
fraud class actions, which were consolidated into one lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging that the company and certain of its
current and former officers made false and misleading statements or
omissions regarding, among other things, the company's commercial
lending underwriting practices, the credit quality of its
commercial credit portfolios, and the value of its commercial
loans, collateralized loan obligations and commercial
mortgage-backed securities.

In May 2022, the district court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, which was appealed to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Wells Fargo & Company is a financial services company based in
California.


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Pressley Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that tbe
Pressley breach of contract putative class action lawsuit is still
pending in the New York State Supreme Court.

On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and
others, including Roberta Little (the “Pressley Litigation”),
in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same
counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and
asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the
Shanklin Litigation.  The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially
the same types of claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on
August 16, 2017.  Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and
denied in part on May 10, 2018.  Some New York Labor Law and
contract claims remain in the case.  Pressley has withdrawn from
the case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole remaining named
plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation.  

On July 12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim
against Little.

On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except
Raske) and the Pressley Litigation filed motions for class
certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York
Labor Law Claims.

On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the motions
for class certification and filed a cross-motion for summary
judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares, Trotter and Little,
and a motion for summary judgment against Raske.

By Order dated May 8, 2020 (the "Class Certification Order"), the
Court denied class certification in the Pressley case, denied class
certification with respect to the breach of contract and alleged
unpaid usage claims, granted class certification as to the New York
Labor Law causes of action asserted by Vretman, Palomares and
Trotter, and declined to rule on Wilhelmina's motions for summary
judgment, denying them without prejudice to be re-filed at a later
date.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation
and Pressley Litigation are without merit and intends to continue
to vigorously defend the actions. Nonetheless, an adverse outcome
in either case is at least reasonably possible. However, the
Company is presently unable to reasonably estimate the amount or
range of possible loss in either case.

Therefore, no amount has been accrued as of September 30, 2022
related to these matters.

Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion
model management business. It specializes in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients, including retailers, designers,
advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog
companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Shanklin Breach of Contract Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the
Shanklin breach of contract lawsuit is still pending at the New
York State Supreme Court.

On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares
and Michelle Griffin Trotter (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New
York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel
who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought
by Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation").  

The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of
contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters
similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting
of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images.  Other
parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include
other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain
advertisers.  

On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss.  

On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to
Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants.  

Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin
Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General
bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims
asserted therein against the model management defendants, and
stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest."
The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the
Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case.

Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then
Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint
asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs'
management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The
Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were
at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors,
of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated
the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other
things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages
and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate
payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full
explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were
computed.  The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the
action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at
trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief
as the court deems proper.  

On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most
of the plaintiffs' claims.  

The Court entered a decision granting in part and denying in part
Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26, 2017.  

The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes
of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in
their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract
causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor
Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame.  

The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was
affirmed on May 24, 2018.

Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion
model management business. It specializes in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients, including retailers, designers,
advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog
companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


WILL RICHARDSON: Shelley Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Shelley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Will Richardson, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Natura Dermatology &
Cosmetics, Case No. CACE-22-016589 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct.,
Broward Cty., Nov. 8, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for
the Defendant's violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act by engaging in unsolicited telephonic sales calls.

To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
aggressive telephonic sales calls to consumers without having
secured prior express written consent as required under the FTSA,
and with no regards for consumers' rights under the TCPA. Through
this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the
Defendants unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of class members and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendants, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual and a "person."

The Defendant provides a variety of cosmetic treatments products
and services to consumers, including Botox injections, fillers,
laser hair treatment, body contouring and acne treatments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: 305-479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                 gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: 305-975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


XANADU MARKETING: Hall Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xanadu Marketing,
Inc. The case is styled as June Hall, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Xanadu Marketing, Inc. doing business
as: Houses Into Homes, Case No. 1:22-cv-03795-MHC (N.D. Ga., Sept.
21, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Xanadu Marketing, Inc. doing business as Houses into Homes --
https://www.housesintohomes.org/ -- provides gently-used beds,
furniture, and household items for families and individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Sutherland, Esq.
          HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
          300 Galleria Pkwy, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: (404) 876-8100
          Fax: (404) 876-3477
          Email: brian@hallandlampros.com

               - and -

          Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq.
          HALL & LAMPROS LLP
          400 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1150
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: (770) 637-2836
          Email: rachel@hallandlampros.com


ZOOM VIDEO: Court Approves Two Objector Settlements in Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PRIVACY
LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Case No.
20-cv-02155-LB (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division:

   a. approves the two objector settlements; and

   b. defers consideration of any service payments and attorney's
      fees.

In this class action against Zoom, the Plaintiffs alleged that Zoom
improperly shared their data through third-party software from
companies such as Facebook and Google, claimed to have end-to-end
encryption when it did not, and failed to prevent "Zoombombing"
(disruptions of Zoom meetings by third-party actors). The parties
settled the case, and the Court approved the settlement over the
objections of several class members. Two appeals were filed: One by
objectors Alvery Neace and Sammy Rodgers, and one by objector
Judith Cohen.

The parties then settled with the appealing objectors, agreeing (in
exchange for withdrawal of the objections) to improve the class
settlement and allow the appealing objectors to later apply for
service payments and attorney's fees. The parties filed a joint
unopposed motion for an indicative ruling (under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 62.1) that the Court would approve the objector
settlements if the Ninth Circuit were to remand.

Under the Neace/Rodgers settlement, the parties agree to undertake
certain procedures to make it easier for class members who have
filed claims to update their addresses and to receive cash payments
by mailed checks.

Under the Cohen settlement, the parties agree to modify the release
in the Settlement Agreement to exclude certain claims for
indemnification or contribution made by a state-licensed
professional against Zoom for damages or losses from a 'Breach of
Confidentiality Claim.'

In exchange for the changes to the settlement with the class, the
settling objectors agree to release and not to pursue their other
objections to the Settlement Agreement and to dismiss their appeals
with prejudice. They also may apply to the Court for service
payments of up to $1,000 each, and their attorneys may apply for
varying amounts in attorney's fees and costs: $47,900 for Rodgers
and Neace's counsel, and $78,000 for Cohen's counsel. All service
payments, attorney's fees, and costs would be paid from the Court's
prior award of attorney's fees to the Class Counsel.

The parties moved for an indicative ruling that the Court would
approve the objector settlements if the Ninth Circuit were to
remand. The objectors will withdraw their objections in exchange
for (1) modifications to the settlement agreement and procedures,
and (2) the opportunity to later apply to the court for attorney's
fees and service awards.

Judge Beeler indicatively rules that she would approve the objector
settlements and the overall settlement agreement in its new form.
She defers consideration of any attorney's fees and service awards
for the settling objectors and their counsel.

At the outset, Judge Beeler finds two issues raised by the fact
that the objector settlements modify the settlement agreement
applicable to the entire class.

First, is the Court required to re-evaluate whether it would
approve the overall settlement in this case? Even if so, Judge
Beeler says the Court already approved the overall settlement, and
the changes only improve that settlement. Thus, she would approve
the new settlement with the class on remand.

Second, does a new notice need to be sent to the class under Rule
23(e)(1)? Judge Beeler states that when a settlement modification
makes the settlement more valuable to the class, courts have
routinely concluded that notice is unnecessary. In the case, the
settlement changes benefit the class, so no new notice is needed.

As for approval of the objector settlements, Judge Beeler holds
that she would approve them on remand because they are in the best
interests of the class. The Rodgers/Neace settlement benefits the
class by improving the class members' ability to file claims and
receive mailed checks. And the Cohen settlement benefits the class
by narrowing the settlement's release.

Moreover, the consideration received by the objectors and their
counsel for these changes to the settlement is only the opportunity
to apply for service payments and fees. This does qualify as
"consideration" requiring the court's approval. But because payment
of money is not guaranteed to the objectors or their counsel, Judge
Beeler does not apply an exacting standard to approve the objector
settlements. Instead, she defers consideration of whether the
objectors substantially enhanced the benefits to the class such
that they are entitled to service payments and attorney's fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 11, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4p5nrkhk 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 ***