/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221129.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 29, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 232

                            Headlines

22ND CENTURY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
3M COMPANY: Madden Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
5830 RESTAURANT: Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement Sought
6 NORTH OCEAN: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed

ADECCO INC: First & Fourth Claims in Risher TCPA Suit Dismissed
AIR FLOW DESIGNS: Blanco Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALL DOGS: Franco Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Minkosky Has Until Dec. 20 to File Amended Suit
ANCESTRY.COM: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought

ASSESSOR OF LYNBROOK: Jerold Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AVANTUS LLC: Allowed Leave to File Sur-Reply to Class Cert.
AVEN FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal and Denial of Class Cert Bid
BANK OF AMERICA: Wolf Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina
BANZAI STEAKHOUSE: Seeks More Time to File Conditional Cert Reply

BEAM WEST INC: Olguin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BEAST HOLDINGS: Wilder Alleges Overcharges, Misdelivered Products
BHI ENERGY: Case Management Order Entered in Ballard Class Suit
BIG LOTS INC: Barnes Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
BISCUITVILLE INC: Deryas Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Class

BITESQUAD.COM LLC: Jenson Sues Over Deceptive Free Delivery Promos
BLACKHAWK NETWORK: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Pryor Suit Says
BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Rosenthal Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
BLUE DIAMOND: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by Feb. 24, 2023
BOEING CO: Court Dismissed B737 MAX Safety Class-Action Suit

BOOMSOURCING LLC: Fitzhenry Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
BORGATA HOLDINGS: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Brown B3 Suit Granted
BSH HOME: Hearing Deadline, Briefing Schedule Continued in Hirsch
CABELA'S LLC: Tucker Sues for Breach of Wiretap Act

CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid for Class Certification Due June 30, 2023
CANADA: AFN Seeks Judicial Review in On-Reserve Child Welfare Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Pre-Motion Conference Scheduling Order Entered
CAREFUSION RESOURCES: Coles Suit Removed to S.D. California
CARGILL INC: Specht Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota

CARRIAGE SERVICES: Settles Chinchilla Labor Suit in CA Court
CHARLES DANIELS: Seeks More Time to File Opposition to Class Cert.
CORE SCIENTIFIC: Faces Pang Suit Over Share Price Drop
CORIZON HEALTH: Seeks Denial of Plaintiffs' Class Cert. Bid
COTY INC: Settlement Reached in Massachusetts Pension Fund Suit

CRUTCHFIELD NEW MEDIA: Suris Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DALLAS MAVERICKS: Robertson Class Status Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Suit Over Alleged Sex-Trafficking Operation
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Customer Overdraft Fees Suit
FUJIFILM NORTH: Faces Inong Suit Over Defective X-Pro3 Camera

HOME DEPOT: Discriminates African American Employees, Israel Says
INTUIT INC: Discloses Subscribers' Data to Meta, VPPA Suit Says
JDM EXPEDITE INC: King Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Schnur Suit Alleges Illegal Website Wiretapping
JOHN EDWARD BIORD: Curry Seeks Conditional Class Certification

JOHN PAUL: Brunette Dry Shampoo Contains Benzene, Nelson Claims
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Suit
KAV HEALTH: McLemore Suit Stayed Pending 6th Cir. Ruling in Brooke
KELLY SERVICES: Bazine Suit Removed to N.D. California
KEYSTONE RURAL HEALTH: K H Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania

KEYSTONE RURAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Hoos Suit Claims
LARRY'S EXPRESS: Elhindi Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
LG ELECTRONICS: Refrigerator's Ice Machines Defective, Heckner Says
LIVE OAK BANCSHARES: Settlement in McAlear Suit Gets Final Nod
LYONS MAGNUS: Products Contain Cronobacter Sakazakii, Suit Says

M & A TREE SERVICE: Leiva Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MARCUS POLLARD: Seeks Reconsideration of Nov. 3 Class Cert Order
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Lalonde Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
MASSACHUSETTS: Installs Spyware on Mobile Devices, Wright Claims
MATERION CORP: Faces Lucyk Labor Suit in Ohio Court

MAZDA MOTOR: Heinz Sues Over Defective Motor Vehicle Engines
MC AND O CONSTRUCTION: Bautista Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MDL 2966: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Classes in Xyrem Suit
MERIDIAN SECURITY: Barker Files Suit in W.D. Texas
MHC HERITAGE: Bid to Strike Report Referred to Magistrate Judge

MIGUEL CARDONA:  Settlement in Sweet Suit Wins Final Nod
MINNESOTA: Court Junks Motion to Certify Class in Larsen Suit
MODIVCARE INC: All Metro Continues to Defend NYSOL Class Suit
MODIVCARE INC: Continues to Defend Farah Labor Class Suit
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Douglass Seeks to Certify Settlement Class

MONEYGRAM INT'L: Continues to Defend Illinois Securities Class Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Scheduling Order Entered in Teagle Class Suit
NEW YORK: Court Rules on Related Matters in Betances v. Fischer
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Must File Sur-Reply in Pascal Suit
NISSAN NORTH: Xtronic CVT Problems Cause Class Action Lawsuit

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Parties Seek Extension of Briefing Deadlines
NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Extended
NP HOME: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Barrack Suit
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Pauli
PACIFIC BELL: Fails to Pay Employees on Timely Basis, Suit Says

PEARLSTONE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Nicholas Suit Says
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Darnis Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
RCI DINING: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Fingerprints' Collection
REASONABLE HEALTH: Alexander Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
REBEL CREAMERY: Bid for Alternative Service in Davis Suit Denied

RENT THE RUNWAY: Sharma Sues Over False IPO Registration Statements
RESOURCE ANESTHESIOLOGY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Suit Says
RESOURCE ANESTHESIOLOGY: Hernandez Balks at Unprotected Health Info
REVOLUTION COOKING: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RING LLC: Must Respond to White Class Suit by January 5, 2023

ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS: Brockland ICFA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
SAM BANKMAN-FRIED: Garrison Sues Over False Representations
SERVICE CORPORATION: Faces Class Action Over Cremation Services
SINGULARITY FUTURE: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Electrical Workers Pension Fund Suit

SPARROW HEALTH: Jones Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA
UNILEVER UNITED: Dry Shampoo Products Contain Benzene, Suit Claims
UNISYS CORP: Faces Strougo Class Suit Over 48% Stock Price Drop
UNITED FURNITURE: Ex-Employee Files Suit Over WARN Act Violations
UNITED STATES: Court Affirmed Summary Judgment in Bump Stocks Suit

VOYAGER DIGITAL: Roberts Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
WASHINGTON FEDERAL: $495K Class Deal in Hartnett Suit Has Final OK
WELCH FOODS: Faces Sinatro Suit Over Mislabeled Fruit Snacks
WHEATLEY, ON: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Negligence
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Love Suit Alleges

XTO ENERGY: Fails to Pay Interest on Late Payments, Hystad Alleges

                            *********

22ND CENTURY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
22nd Century Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself and Messrs. Henry Sicignano and John
Brodfuehrer against a securities class suit.

On January 21, 2019, Matthew Jackson Bull, a resident of Denver,
Colorado, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's then
Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company's
then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
entitled: Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano
III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 1:19 cv 00409.

On January 29, 2019, Ian M. Fitch, a resident of Essex County
Massachusetts, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's
then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the
Company's then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
entitled: Ian Fitch, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano
III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 2:19 cv 00553.

On May 28, 2019, the plaintiff in the Fitch case voluntarily
dismissed that action.

On August 1, 2019, the Court in the Bull case issued an order
designating Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire Corp, and Stephens
Johnson as lead plaintiffs.

On September 16, 2019, pursuant to a joint motion by the parties,
the Court in the Bull case transferred the class action to federal
district court in the Western District of New York, where it
remains pending as Case No. 1:19-cv-01285.

Plaintiffs in the Bull case filed an Amended Complaint on November
19, 2019 that alleges three counts: Count I sues the Company and
Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer and alleges that the Company's
quarterly and annual reports, SEC filings, press releases and other
public statements and documents contained false statements in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5; Count II sues Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer pursuant to
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b5(a) and
(c); and Count III sues Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer for the
allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The Amended Complaint seeks to certify a class, and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

On January 29, 2020, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On January 14, 2021, the Court granted the motion, dismissing all
claims with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 12, 2021 to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

On May 24, 2022, after briefing and oral argument, the Second
Circuit issued an order affirming in part, and reversing in part,
the District Court’s dismissal order.

The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the
claims relating to the non-disclosure of stock promotion articles,
but reversed the District Court's dismissal order of the claims
alleging the non-disclosure of an SEC investigation.

The Second Circuit noted in its opinion, however, that the District
Court had not addressed certain arguments raised by the Company and
Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer in the Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint as to these remaining claims, and remanded the
case to the District Court to address these arguments for the
dismissal of the remaining claims.

On August 8, 2022, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer filed a renewed motion to dismiss the remaining claims
in the Amended Complaint to address the arguments not previously
addressed by the District Court.

On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to
the motion.

On October 12, 2022, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer filed a reply brief in further support of the motion.
The parties now await a District Court decision on the motion to
dismiss, or an order scheduling a hearing for oral argument on the
motion.
The Company believes that the claims are frivolous, meritless and
that the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer have
substantial legal and factual defenses to the remaining claims.

It intends to vigorously defend the Company and Messrs. Sicignano
and Brodfuehrer against such claims.

22nd Century Group, Inc., a plant  biotechnology company, provides
technology that allows increasing or decreasing the level of
nicotine and other nicotine alkaloids in tobacco plants, and
cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering
and plant breeding. 22nd Century Group, Inc. was founded in 1998
and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York.



3M COMPANY: Madden Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Madden, and Elwin Madden by the Proposed Executor and
Next-of-Kin, Barbara Madden, 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-03814-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 5, 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 is an adult resident of the State of Arizona. The
Plaintiff is the proposed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Elwin
Madden. The Plaintiff Elwin Madden ("Decedent") Prior to death,
Decedent was diagnosed with colon cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products. Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or
contributed to his death.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Phone: 631-600-0000
          Facsimile: 631-543-5450

               - and -

          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


5830 RESTAURANT: Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL CARRILLO RODRIGUEZ
on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. 5830 RESTAURANT CORP., SMOKIN DAVES BBQ, CORP., SMOKIN DAVE'S,
LLC, 7522 RESTAURANT CORP., 5374 RESTAURANT CORP., HOUSE OF Q
CORP., and DAVID OEHLMAN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01166-KLM (D. Colo.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. Certifying a stipulated Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Settlement
      Class defined as:

      "All hourly employees who worked for Defendants between
       April 28, 2015 and April 28, 2021;"

   2. Granting preliminary approval to the Parties' Settlement
      Agreement;

   3. Approving their Settlement Notice; and

   4. Setting a final fairness hearing at the Court's earliest
      convenience after March 19, 2023.

The Plaintiff filed this action for unpaid wages on April 28, 2021.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him and his
co-workers overtime wages and failed to provide them with rest
periods during their shifts.

The Plaintiff pleaded collective violations of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class
violations of Colorado wage statutes.

The Parties engaged in early settlement discussions which broke
down because Plaintiff insisted on negotiating a settlement as to
all hourly workers in all six of Defendants' Smokin' Dave's
restaurants, while Defendants intended to limit the negotiations to
three locations.

A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Nov. 18, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3V6iqztat no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN TURNER , PLLC
          2400 Broadway, Suite B
          Boulder, CO 80304
          Telephone: (303) 440-8780
          E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew N. Dunkin, Esq.
          FLANDERS, ELSBERG, HERBER & DUNN, LLC
          401 Main Street, Suite 1
          Longmont, CO 80501
          Telephone: (303) 776-5280
          E-mail: mark@flanderslaw.com

6 NORTH OCEAN: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 6 NORTH OCEAN CONCEPTS INC. d/b/a CAJUN CLAWS OF
PATCHOGUE, and XIANG LIN a/k/a SKY LIN, Case No. 2:22-cv-07009
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2022), is brought against the Defendants'
unlawful actions and to recover unpaid overtime wages,
spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, and the
New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff worked over forty hours per week and was paid a day
rate that failed to compensate him for hours worked over forty per
workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay the Plaintiff
spread-of-hours pay when his shifts spanned more than ten hours per
day, provide him with wage statements with each payment of wages or
wage notices upon hire or whenever his rate of pay changed, and
timely pay him his wages no later than seven calendar days after
the end of each workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a chef at Cajun Claws from May 2021 to May
2022.

The Defendant owns, operates, and does business as Cajun Claws, a
restaurant located in Patchogue, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Vivianna Morales, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue - 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 583-9500
          Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                 morales@pechmanlaw.com


ACUTUS MEDICAL: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed
----------------------------------------------------
Acutus Medical 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 lead
plaintiff in a putative securities class action filed a
consolidated amended complaint in court on September 16, 2022.

As of September 30, 2022, the Company and certain of its current
and former officers have been named as defendants in two putative
securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on February
14, 2022 and March 23, 2022.

On July 19, 2022, the court consolidated the two actions, appointed
a lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel for the proposed class.


On September 16, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint.

Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved
in these class action matters, the outcome is not presently
determinable and any loss is neither probable nor reasonably
estimable.

Acutus Medical, Inc. is an arrhythmia management company focused on
improving the way cardiac arrhythmias are diagnosed and treated
based in California.


ADECCO INC: First & Fourth Claims in Risher TCPA Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLARENCE RISHER, Plaintiff v. ADECCO INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-05602-RS (N.D. Cal.), Chief District
Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
first and third claims for relief of the fourth amended complaint.

In this putative class action, Risher alleges Defendants Adecco and
Locutus, Inc. (formerly Mya Systems, Inc.) violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA") by sending
text messages to his cell phone, soliciting him for possible
employment through Adecco, which operates a job placement service.

Risher alleges that in 2008 he submitted information to Adecco's
job placement services seeking employment in either a "data entry"
position or as a "desktop support technician." He was not hired for
either of those positions, and had no further contact with Adecco.
Nearly 11 years later, however, in 2019, Risher received a text
message stating, "Hello Clarence, this is Mya from Adecco. We're
hiring for Refurbisher roles, and I thought you might be
interested. Do you have a minute to chat via text? You can also
reply 'no more texts'." Risher ignored the message. Some hours
later he received a further text message asking, "Hi Clarence! It's
Mya again. Are you free to chat for a few minutes?"

"Mya," was not a human being, but a "chatbot" -- a computer program
utilizing so-called artificial intelligence to recognize a
consumer's responses and lead a conversation with an individual in
natural language by mimicking a human. Mya was developed and
operated by Locutus, under a contractual relationship with Adecco.

The operative fourth amended complaint advances three claims for
relief. The first claim alleges the Defendants utilized an
automatic telephone dialing system. Risher concedes, however, that
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Facebook, Inc. v.
Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 1163 (2021), which applied a more restrictive
construction of "autodialer," his first claim for relief is not
tenable and must be dismissed.

The Defendants' present motion does not challenge the second claim
for relief, which asserts they sent the text messages
notwithstanding the fact that Risher's telephone number was listed
on the National Do Not Call Registry. The only question presented
by the motion to dismiss, therefore, is whether text messages fall
within the provisions of the TCPA prohibiting unsolicited calls
made using an "artificial or prerecorded voice." Risher also
challenges a discovery order entered by the assigned magistrate
judge.

Judge Seeborg finds that Risher contends that the messages had a
"voice" in a metaphorical sense -- indeed that the very intent of
the Mya chatbot is to create the impression of an interactive human
"voice," responding conversationally. He further argues that the
texts, although silent, represent the very type of automated, mass
messaging that TCPA was intended to prevent.

Judge Seeborg explains that in Soliman v. Subway Franchisee
Advertising Fund Trust, Ltd., Case No. 3:19-cv-592 (July 18, 2022,
D. Conn.), it was held that 'voice' can also be used metaphorically
but this use is less common and is typically used in poetic or
literary settings. In normal English, an advertiser's text message
is not its 'voice.'

Risher's third claim for relief, therefore, fails. Because this
dismissal turns on the legal conclusion that the text messages do
not fall within the statutory language, it is not a pleading defect
that can be cured by amending to state additional or other facts.
Risher has not suggested otherwise. Accordingly, no leave to amend
will be granted.

For these reasons, Judge Seebrog grants the motion to dismiss the
first and third claims for relief of the fourth amended complaint.
The Defendants will file an answer to the remaining claim for
relief within 20 days of the date of the Order.

Risher contends that the magistrate judge has erroneously limited
his ability to obtain certain documents from the Defendants -- (1)
a representative sample of the dialing lists/logs showing text
recipients who may be class members, (2) data and records related
to any consent defense, and (3) documents showing differences in
the text messages.

Judge Seeberg holds that the record is clear that the magistrate
judge was appropriately focused on the questions of burden and
relevance as directed by that rule both at the time of the order
Risher challenges, and when issuing the underlying prior order.
Indeed, the magistrate judge was careful to avoid deciding issues
where the parties had not provided sufficient information and
clarity to permit a proper Rule 26 analysis. In directing further
meet and confer negotiations, the order noted, it is not the
court's job to guess at relevance or burden. In short, Risher has
failed to show that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. His objection is overruled.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/47722tcx from Leagle.com.


AIR FLOW DESIGNS: Blanco Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Julio Blanco, and other similarly situated individuals v. Air Flow
Designs, Inc. a/k/a Air Flow Designs Heating & Air conditioning of
Orlando, and Jesse H. Burd, individually, Case No. 6:22-cv-02108
(M.D. Fla., Nov. 15, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
and retaliation under the United States laws.

The Plaintiff was paid for 40 regular hours, but he was not
compensated for overtime hours, as required by law. The Plaintiff
did not clock in and out, but on Mondays, the Plaintiff would turn
in a timesheet showing only 40 regular hours. The Defendants
instructed the Plaintiff to report only 40 working hours. Moreover,
the Defendants placed a sign at the warehouse warning employees
that they should report 8 hours per day, per 5 days. The Defendants
would not pay for overtime hours. The Defendants were in complete
control of the Plaintiff's schedule and could track the number of
hours worked by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants willfully
and intentionally failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages, at
the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that
he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was a heating and air conditioning technician.

Air Flow Designs provides commercial and residential heat and air
conditioning installations, maintenance, and repair services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ALL DOGS: Franco Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Jesus Franco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ALL DOGS IN THE CITY, INC. d/b/a ALL DOGS IN THE CITY,
FRANCISCO P. NETO, and CAROLINA LOZANO, Case No. 1:22-cv-06990
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, that he is entitled to
recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due
to time shaving, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants had a policy and practice of time-shaving resulting
in a failure to pay Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs for
all of their hours worked. The Defendants had a policy and practice
that failed to pay overtime compensation at the statutory rate of
time and one-half to Plaintiff and FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a dog attendant
for the Defendants' All Dogs In The City.

All Dogs In The City provides dog owners full service "grooming,
daycare, boarding, dog walking, and pick up services."[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


ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Minkosky Has Until Dec. 20 to File Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEITH MATTHEW MINKOSKY, Plaintiff v. DAVID J.
GLADIEUX, Defendant, Cause No. 1:22-CV-300-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind.),
Judge Holly A. Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, grants Minkosky until
Dec. 20, 2022, to file an amended complaint.

Minkosky, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint against
Sheriff Gladieux about the conditions of confinement at the Allen
County Jail. He seeks damages for being detained in the Allen
County Jail during the period when the jail was found to be
unconstitutionally overcrowded.

In the class action, Morris v. Sheriff of Allen County, No.
1:20-CV-34-DRL, 2022 WL 971098 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2022), the court
found at summary judgment that certain conditions of confinement at
the jail violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution. It entered a permanent injunction to address the
overcrowding, lack of sufficient staffing and recreation, and
inadequate supervision of prisoners, and it continues to monitor
the remediation of the unconstitutional conditions.

Judge Brady holds that simply being at the jail during the period
relevant to this class action is not enough to receive damages.
Overcrowding, on its own, does not state a constitutional claim,
and instead the court must look to the effects the overcrowding has
on the conditions of confinement. To state a claim, Minkosky must
link the complained-of conditions to the overcrowding and explain
how he was personally affected by the conditions because a
necessary element of a constitutional tort is "that the officer's
act caused any injury."

Minkosky's complaint does not state a claim because he does not
explain how these jail conditions denied him "basic human needs" or
"the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." The only
specific harm he alleges is being attacked three times. But without
more details, Judge Brady cannot determine whether the attacks
could be reasonably attributed to the overcrowding or whether
Sheriff Gladieux or another staff member could be held responsible
for failing to prevent the attack.

The complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be
granted. If he believes he can state a claim based on (and
consistent with) the events described in this complaint, Minkosky
may file an amended complaint. To file an amended complaint, he
needs to write this cause number on a Pro Se 14 (INND Rev. 2/20)
Prisoner Complaint form which is available from his law library.
After he properly completes that form addressing the issues raised
in this order, he needs to send it to the Court.

For these reasons, Judge Brady grants Minkosky until Dec. 20, 2022,
to file an amended complaint. If he does not respond by the
deadline, this case will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A
without further notice because the current complaint does not state
a claim for which relief can be granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 18, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/8hnrfnzv from Leagle.com.


ANCESTRY.COM: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY SESSA and MARK
SESSA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a Virginia Corporation;
ANCESTRY.COM INC., a Delaware Corporation; and ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW
(D. Nev.), the parties seek an Order of this Court extending the
class certification deadlines as follows.

     Event                          Current        Proposed
                                    Deadline       Deadline     

-- Last Day to Move to            Nov. 29, 2022   Dec. 6, 2022
   Certify Class:

-- Last Day to Oppose             Jan. 10, 2023   Jan. 17, 2023
   Motion to Certify
   Class after motion:

-- Last Day to File Reply         Feb.7, 2023     Feb. 14, 2023
   Supporting Motion to
   Certify Class:

On May 16, 2022, the Court approved the parties' Amended Joint
Discovery Plan setting the close of fact discovery for October 25,
2022 and the last day to move to certify a class as November 29,
2022.

Pursuant to the Court's order, Ancestry and Plaintiffs conferred
regarding custodians and search terms on October 21, 2022 and
subsequently reached agreement on these issues. Ancestry began its
production of documents collected using the agreed upon custodians
and search terms on November 11, 2022, but will not be able to
complete its production until November 17, 2022.

Ancestry.com provides online family genealogy information and
resources.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3VbOp0Wat no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com

                - and -

          Miles N. Clark, Esq.
          KNEPPER & CLARK LLC
          5510 So. Fort Apache Rd, Suite 30
          Las Vegas, NV 89148
          Telephone: (702) 856-7430
          Facsimile: (702) 447-8048
          E-mail: Miles.Clark@knepperclark.com

                - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San
          Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
          E-mail: MRam@forthepeople.com
                  MAppel@forthepeople.com

                - and -

          Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN
          102 Bergen Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (347) 645-0464
          E-mail: Ben@benosbornlaw.com

Counsel for ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., ANCESTRY.COM INC., and
ANCESTRY.COM LLC are:

          Shon Morgan, Esq.
          John W. Baumann, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
          E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
                  jackbaumann@quinnemanuel.com

                - and -

          Cristina Henriquez, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 801-5000
          Facsimile: (650) 801-5000
          E-mail: cristinahenriquez@quinnemanuel.com

                - and -

          H. Stan Johnson, Esq.
          COHEN-JOHNSON, LLC
          375 E. Warm Springs Road, Suite 104
          Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
          Telephone : (702) 823-2500
          Facsimile : (702) 823-3400
          E-mail: sjohnson@cohenjohnson.com

ASSESSOR OF LYNBROOK: Jerold Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Lynbrook, et al. The case is styled as William Jerold,
April Jerold, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the
annexed SCHEDULE A v. The Assessor of the Village of Lynbrook, The
Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Lynbrook, Respondents,
Case No. 616017/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 16, 2022).

The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."

Lynbrook -- https://www.lynbrookvillage.net/ -- is a village in the
Town of Hempstead in Nassau County, on the South Shore of Long
Island, in New York.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG LLP
          132 SPRUCE STREET
          CEDARHURST, NY 11516


AVANTUS LLC: Allowed Leave to File Sur-Reply to Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez v. Avantus, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01772 (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Janet C. Hall
entered an order granting the defendant leave to file sur-reply to
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification by Xactus, LLC.

Sur-Reply must be filed within 7 days of the date of this Order.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit.

Avantus is a consumer reporting agency.[CC]





AVEN FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal and Denial of Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILAGROS JOHNSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AVEN FINANCIAL, INC d/b/a Aven, Case No. 6:22-cv-01648-WWB-EJK
(M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
dismissing and denying class certification.

The Plaintiff Milagros Johnson filed this class action lawsuit
after receiving text messages from Aven Financial Inc. about its
credit card. Though she asked for these communications, she claims
they violated the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act'sc("FTSA")
prohibition on automated communications (Counts I and IV), (2) the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act's ("TCPA") rule requiring
companies to maintain an internal list of people who request not to
be called (Counts II and III), and (3) the TCPA's regulations
requiring seller identification (Count V).

The Plaintiff alleges that on July 24 and 31, 2022, Aven sent her
the text messages. She claims that Aven used "a computer software
system that automatically selected and dialed Plaintiff's telephone
number, "and that Aven used a "messaging platform" that
"automatically made a series of calls with no human involvement."

The Complaint also asserts that Plaintiff never provided "express
written consent" as defined in the FTSA, though she does not
dispute providing her number to Aven to receive texts. Despite this
concession, Plaintiff claims the texts violate the TCPA and the
FTSA. She claims in Counts I and IV that the texts violate the
FTSA's rule against using an "automated system" to send certain
messages without "prior express written consent."

This case involves a Plaintiff who asked to be contacted, was
contacted only because she made the request, and then filed suit
rather than asking Aven not to contact her anymore. The Complaint
relies on an unconstitutional Florida statute and fails to plead
sufficient facts to support any TCPA claims. It should therefore be
dismissed in its entirety. And to the extent any claims survive,
the Court should deny class certification because Plaintiff agreed
to waive her right to bring class claims, the Defendant contends.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3V6xNruat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ryan D. Watstein, Esq.
          Matthew A. Keilson, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
          171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 400-7300
          Facsimile: (404) 400-7333
          E-mail: rwatstein@kcozlaw.com
                  mkeilson@kcozlaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Wolf Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kanani Wolf, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No.
22CVS16723 was removed from the Superior Court of North Carolina,
Mecklenburg County, to the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina on Nov. 16, 2022, and assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00621.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Bank of America has
made "misrepresentations and omissions about the Zelle money
transfer service" which "deceived its customers and damaged BofA
account holders who: have been the victim of 'bank employee
impersonation' fraud who have incurred losses due to that
particular fraud that have not been reimbursed and who were
entitled to a full reimbursement of such losses." The Complaint
asserts, on behalf of putative Nationwide and California classes,
violations of the EFTA, North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act
("NCUTPA"), California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and
California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and brings a common law
claim for breach of contract. The Plaintiff seeks actual and
punitive damages, restitution, and injunctive relief.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew D. Benedetto, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          350 South Grand Ave., Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 443-5300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-5400
          Email: matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Noah Levine, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich St.
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 230-8875
          Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
          Email: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Kobi Kennedy Brinson, Esq.
          Kevin Zhao, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          300 South Tryon St., 16th Floor
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Phone: (704) 350-7747
          Facsimile: (704) 350-7800
          Email: kbrinson@winston.com
                 kzhao@winston.com


BANZAI STEAKHOUSE: Seeks More Time to File Conditional Cert Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tung v. Banzai Steakhouse
Inc. et al., Case No. 7:22-cv-05750-KMK-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a two-week
extension of time, from November 17, 2022, until December 1, 2022,
to respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification
filed on October 20, 2022, as well as a concomitant two week
extension of time for Plaintiff to reply.

This is Defendants' first request for an extension of time and it
is not anticipated to affect any other deadlines. The
undersigned corresponded with Counsel for Plaintiff who consented
to this request.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TU0F4Xat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Banzai Steakhouse, Inc., and Karl Shao are:

          Sameer Nath, Esq.
          Sim & DePaola, LLP
          42-40 Bell Blvd Suite 405,
          Queens, NY 11361
          E-mail: snath@simdepaola.com

BEAM WEST INC: Olguin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beam West Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Antonio Hogen Olguin, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Beam West Inc., Does 1-10, Case
No. 34-2022-00329905-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
Nov. 16, 2022).

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

BEAM, Inc. -- https://www.beaminc.com/ -- is a San Francisco based
international consulting and design firm.[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


BEAST HOLDINGS: Wilder Alleges Overcharges, Misdelivered Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY WILDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEAST HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a SHOP MRBEAST and
REVOLT ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-08165-MCS-SK
(C.D. Cal., Nov. 8, 2022) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff against the Defendants on behalf of herself and a
Nationwide Class and a Kentucky Subclass of all other similarly
situated purchasers of the affected products in the United States,
alleging claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.

Beast Holdings is the parent company for the business dealings of
popular YouTube personality Jimmy Donaldson, known online as
MrBeast. For more than a decade, Donaldson has maintained a highly
successful online presence through "videos [which offer] a mix of
stunts and humour." A key part of Donaldson's online presence are
giveaways to fans and his apparent philanthropy. For example, it
was widely reported that he raised more than $20 million for a
tree-planting campaign in 2019. Mr. Donaldson has, in recent years,
expanded into foodservice and retail, and, through Defendants,
opened an online store, www.shopmrbeast.com.

According to the complaint, Defendants' online store has been
plagued with overcharges, mis-delivered products, and indefinite
delays that often face no response from Defendants in spite of
their automated response to all customers that Defendants "will get
back to you with a (human) response within 24-48 hours." As a
result, numerous customers of Defendants have suffered damages in
the form of overcharges or mis-delivered products (with no way by
which to receive a refund or an exchange) or have simply never
received their products after ordering from Defendant, says the
suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          Alex Tramontano, Esq.
          Ferdeza Zekiri, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
                  byrd@whafh.com
                  tramontano@whafh.com
                  zekiri@whafh.com

               - and -

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000  
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

BHI ENERGY: Case Management Order Entered in Ballard Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON BALLARD, v. BHI
ENERGY, INC.,Case No. 2:22-cv-00115-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
W. Scott Hardy entered a case management order as follows:

  -- Any motions to amend the pleadings     January 20, 2023
     or add new parties shall be filed
     by:

  -- lass Certification Discovery shall     March 31, 2023
     be completed by:

  -- Expert Class Certification             March 31, 2023
     Discovery shall be completed by:

  -- Plaintiff's Data Analysis Report       February 10, 2023
     and any Class Certification
     Experts and their reports shall
     be disclosed on or before:

  -- Defendant's Class Certification        March 10, 2023
     Experts and their reports
     shall be disclosed by:

  -- Expert depositions shall               March 31, 2023
     be completed by:

  -- Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23         April 28, 2023
     Class Certification, Memorandum
     in Support, and all supporting
     evidence shall be filed by:

  -- Defendant's Memorandum in              May 26, 2023
     Opposition to Rule 23 Class
     Certification and all supporting
     evidence shall be filed by:

  -- Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in       June 16, 2023
     Support of Rule 23 Class
     Certification, if any, shall be
     filed by:

BHI Energy is an industry provider of specialty services and
staffing solutions in support of the daily operations, routine
maintenance and capital investment requirements of the power
generation, oil & gas, industrial, government and electricity
transmission & distribution markets.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3OnE3swat no extra charge.[CC]

BIG LOTS INC: Barnes Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Barnes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Big Lots, Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-09782-VB
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling
practices with regard to its regular and menthol adhesive lidocaine
patches under the SoundBody brand ("Product").

The relevant common front label representations include "Fast
Acting," "Lidocaine," "pain relieving ointment on a breathable
adhesive pad," "For back, neck, leg & arm," formulated for "Maximum
Strength." Each version contains "Lidocaine 4%," shown on the front
label of the regular and back label Drug Facts for both regular and
menthol. While the front label of the regular describes it as a
"Pain Relief Patch," the menthol version promises "Targeted
Immediate Pain Relief" through "Desensitizing Aggravated Nerves" to
provide "Long Lasting First Aid for Pain." Both versions purport to
be "long lasting," as indicated in their identical directions
stating, "Do not use more than 2 patches in 24 hours unless,
directed by a doctor."

The claim that the Products provide "Pain relieving ointment on a
breathable adhesive pad" is misleading because they regularly peel
off skin within three to four hours, and sometimes in minutes,
after being applied. Consumers expect that when they are told the
Products are "long lasting" (menthol) and directed to "not use more
than 2 patches in 24 hours," the patches will adhere to their
bodies for no less than twelve hours or even longer. However, the
Products cannot adhere to the skin for twelve hours, which renders
the instructions to "not use more than 2 patches in 24 hours"
misleading, because it assumes the patches will not have fallen off
by then. The result of the failure to adhere for twelve hours means
that the Products cannot deliver the "Maximum Strength" amount of
lidocaine.

The front label representation that the Products can provide "pain
relief," coupled with the instructions implying the patches will
adhere for twelve hours, is false and misleading given that the
patches systematically fails to fully adhere to the bodies of
users. Moreover, the implication the Products will adhere for
twelve hours is inconsistent with the "Uses" disclosed on the Drug
Facts which indicates they can only "Temporarily relieves minor
pain," which consumers will understand as for a short time, not
twelve hours.

The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with
respect to the Products which are false and misleading. Had the
Plaintiff known the truth, she would not have bought the Products
or would have paid less for it. As a result of the false and
misleading representations, the Products are sold at a premium
price, approximately no less than no less than $1.29 per patch,
excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented
in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for
absent the misleading representations and omissions, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Products at locations including Big
Lots in New York City.

Big Lots, Inc. markets, labels and sells regular and menthol
adhesive lidocaine patches under the SoundBody brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BISCUITVILLE INC: Deryas Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IHAB DERYAS, v.
BISCUITVILLE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00600 (M.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
      Collective Class:

      "All persons who are or have been employed by
      Biscuitville,Inc. with the job title of "Assistant
      Manager," or some similar title, who were misclassified as
      exempt, and therefore denied overtime compensation as
      required by federal wage and hour laws, at any time within
      three years prior to this action's filing date through the
      date of final disposition of this action (the "Collective
      Class")."

   2. appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel; and

   3. appointing the named Plaintiff Ihab Deryas as Class
      Representative.

Biscuitville owns and operates restaurants. The Company offers
prepared foods, sandwiches, snacks, and beverages for on and off
premises consumption.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EX0fXaat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
          Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
          MAGINNIS HOWARD
          7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
          Raleigh, NC 27615
          Telephone: (919) 526-0450
          Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
          E-mail: kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com
                  emaginnis@maginnishoward.com

BITESQUAD.COM LLC: Jenson Sues Over Deceptive Free Delivery Promos
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAT JENSON, GABRIEL WILLISON, AND ALISON EKBERG, individually, and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BITESQUAD.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-22-16699 (Minn.
Dist., 4th Judicial, Hennepin Cty., Nov. 9, 2022) is a proposed
class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive
and declaratory relief from Defendant Bitesquad.com, LLC, arising
from its deceptive and untruthful promises to provide free delivery
when one of its "free delivery promotions" is used.

According to the complaint, the representation of free delivery has
caused consumers to flock to the Bite Squad platform, and upon
information and belief, Bite Squad chooses to emphasize the claim
that consumers can obtain free delivery by using its Promotion
because it understands that consumers abhor delivery fees, and in
many cases will walk away from a purchase before agreeing to pay
for delivery. However, Bite Squad's promise of free delivery is
misleading at best. While Bite Squad regularly advertises its free
delivery promotions and Bite Squad's order confirmation page
confirms a $0.00 delivery fee when the promotions are used, the
customer is in fact charged a fee that is only charged when a
customer selects delivery, says the suit.

Hundreds of Bite Squad customers, like Plaintiffs, have been
assessed hidden delivery charges they did not bargain for, and will
continue to be assessed such hidden delivery fees unless Bite
Squad's conduct is enjoined, the suit asserts.

Bitesquad.com, LLC is a restaurant delivery service doing business
in Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Mississippi, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Anthony J. Stauber, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  tstabuer@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          Courtney E. Ross, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 West 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72207
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
                  cross@cbplaw.com

BLACKHAWK NETWORK: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Pryor Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PRYOR, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLACKHAWK NETWORK, INC., dba BLACKHAWK ENGAGEMENT
SOLUTIONS, Case No. 3:22-cv-07084-SK (N.D. Cal., Nov. 11, 2022)
alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard
the personally identifiable information provided by customers that
appeared on the MyPrepaidCenter.com profile.

The PII includes including their unencrypted and unredacted first
and last names, email addresses, phone numbers ("PII"), their
payment card data in combination with information "related to the
Prepaid Card profiles," which included card numbers, expiration
dates, and CVV security codes ("PCD") and other sensitive
information.

The Plaintiff brings this class action to seek damages for himself
and other similarly situated consumers impacted by the Data Breach,
and injunctive relief designed to protect the sensitive information
of the Plaintiff and other Class Members from further data breach
incidents, the suit says.

On October 31, 2022, Blackhawk filed a Notice of Data Breach with
the Attorney General of Montana. The Notice states, on September
11, 2022, Blackhawk "discovered irregular activity in connection"
with MyPrepaidCenter.com. As a result of the Defendant's failure to
prevent the Data Breach, or detect it during its occurrence
thousands of MyPrepaidCenter.com customers across the United States
are suffering and will continue to suffer real and imminent harm as
a direct consequence of Defendant's conduct, which
includes:

-- refusing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure
    its data systems were protected;

-- refusing to take available steps to prevent the breach from
    happening; and

-- failing to adequately audit and monitor its third party data
    security vendors.

Blackhawk is engaged in providing "global branded payments" to its
customers located within the United States and abroad, which
includes gift cards, prepaid incentive cards, other online payment
options for employers and merchants, gaming, and gambling
options.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 239-4778
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
          gharoutunian@justice4you.com

                - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Justin C. Walker, Esq.
          Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 East Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                  jwalker@msdlegal.com
                  dgould@msdlegal.com

BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Rosenthal Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Scott Rosenthal, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BLOOMINGDALE'S INC., was
transferred from to the U.S. District Court for District of
Massachusetts on Nov. 16, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-11944-NMG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Bloomingdale's Inc. -- http://www.bloomingdales.com/-- is an
American luxury department store chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE DIAMOND: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by Feb. 24, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE CUMMINGS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00141-AW-HTC (N.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Allen Winsor entered an order that Defendant's
motion for extension is granted in part.

The deadline to respond to the class-certification motion is
extended to February 24, 2023, or 30 days after the motion to
dismiss is decided—whichever is earlier.

The Defendant moved for an extension of time to respond to the
class-certification motion. The court earlier granted a shorter
extension but permitted Defendant to seek a longer one after it
filed its motion to dismiss.

That order set a seven-day deadline for any response to a motion to
extend the class-certification response deadline. The response
deadline has expired, so the Defendant's motion for extension is
treated as unopposed.

Blue Diamond Growers is an agricultural cooperative and marketing
organization that specializes in California almond.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UVykMXat no extra charge.[CC]


BOEING CO: Court Dismissed B737 MAX Safety Class-Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
ch-aviation.com reports that an appeals court in the United States
has dismissed class-action lawsuits filed by consumers who bought
tickets for flights on Boeing (BOE, Washington National) B737-8 MAX
aircraft, who alleged that the manufacturer and Southwest Airlines
(WN, Dallas Love Field) had deliberately concealed a design flaw in
the planes.

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled in case
number 21-40720, in a 3-0 decision, that four classes of passengers
who claimed they were overcharged on around 200 million Southwest
and American Airlines (AA, Dallas/Fort Worth) tickets over a period
of 18 months could not prove they had been harmed.

The plaintiffs alleged that Boeing and Southwest "defrauded them
by, among other things, concealing a serious safety defect in the
Boeing 737 MAX 8," but they "have not plausibly alleged that any
class member suffered either physical or economic injury from
Boeing's and Southwest's alleged fraud," a summary of the ruling
seen by ch-aviation said.

The B737 MAX was grounded worldwide after 346 people died in the
Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes of October 2018 and March
2019, respectively. In January 2021, Boeing agreed to pay USD2.5
billion to resolve a US Department of Justice criminal
investigation into the crashes that implicated the planes'
Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS).

The plaintiffs, who filed suit in July 2019, claimed that "behind
the scenes, Southwest aggressively pressured Boeing to deliver the
MAX 8 without requiring pilots to undergo significant additional
training. Southwest wanted Boeing to convince the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) that the MAX 8 and a previous 737 variant, the
737 NG, were so similar that pilots did not need to complete new
flight-simulator training for the MAX 8. Instead, a short course on
an iPad or computer would be sufficient," the court papers
summarised.

The companies misled the FAA, they added, about the MCAS stability
system that took control of both of the aircraft that crashed by
improperly pushing their noses down.

They included American Airlines ticket purchasers as proposed class
members because, as they put it, "the same Boeing-Southwest
conspiracy that caused passengers to fly on a MAX 8 on Southwest
Airlines [. . . .] proximately caused passengers to fly on other
airlines that flew the MAX 8, such as American Airlines (when they
would not have done so but for the Boeing-Southwest conspiracy,
which hid safety issues with the airplane)."

However, the claims of fraud lacked standing because that risk
never materialised, according to the ruling, and "if anything,
plaintiffs are likely better off financially. If the MCAS defect
had been widely exposed earlier, the MAX 8 flights plaintiffs chose
would have been unavailable and they'd have had to take different,
more expensive (or otherwise less desirable) flights instead."

It concluded: "In sum, plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged any
concrete injury. [. . . .] They concededly have suffered no
physical harm. They have offered no plausible theory of economic
harm. At bottom, plaintiffs complain of a past risk of physical
injury to which they were allegedly exposed because of defendants'
fraud. But because that risk never materialised, plaintiffs have
suffered no injury in fact [. . . .]. Their case therefore must be
dismissed."

Boeing and Southwest did not immediately respond to ch-aviation's
request for comment.

According to the ch-aviation fleets advanced module, Southwest
Airlines currently operates 111 B737-8s with a further 191 plus 239
B737-7s on order. American Airlines operates forty-two B737-8s with
a further 87 on order. [GN]

BOOMSOURCING LLC: Fitzhenry Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boomsourcing LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Mark Fitzhenry, individually and on
behalf of a class of all person and entities similarly situated v.
Boomsourcing LLC, Mediaspike, Inc., STVT-AAI Education, Inc. d/b/a
Ancora Education, Case No. 2:22-cv-04058-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15,
2022).

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

Boomsourcing -- https://boomsourcing.com/ -- is an outsource
company. It offers services such as customer acquisition and
customer care services such as SMS text support and sales, inbound
and outbound phone calls, and online sales and support through
email and chat.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
          DAVID MAXFIELD ATTORNEY LLC
          PO Box 11865
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: (803) 509-6800
          Fax: (855) 299-1656
          Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com


BORGATA HOLDINGS: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Borgata Holdings,
Inc. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Borgata
Holdings, Inc., Finamill Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-09755 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 16, 2022).

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

Borgata Hotel -- https://borgata.mgmresorts.com/en.html -- in
Atlantic City features luxurious rooms, restaurants, and nightlife,
plus casino and poker games .[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Brown B3 Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RENNELL BROWN, Plaintiff v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION INC., ET AL., Section: "E" (4), Defendants, Civil Action
No. 17-3101 (E.D. La.), Judge Susie Morgan of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the motion for
summary judgment filed by BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP
America Production Co., BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy Services,
Inc., Transocean Holdings.

The instant action is a "B3" case arising out of the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. B3 cases involve "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)."

Before the Court is the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
against Brown filed on Oct. 11, 2022. The Plaintiff's opposition to
the motion was due on Oct. 18, 2022. As of the date of the present
Order and Reasons, no opposition to the instant motion has been
filed, and the Plaintiff has not moved for an extension of his
deadline to file an opposition brief. The Defendants' motion for
summary judgment is, therefore, unopposed.

Because the instant motion is unopposed, Judge Morgan considers the
Defendants' statement of uncontested facts to be admitted pursuant
to Local Rule 56.2.  The Plaintiff alleges he was exposed to toxic
chemicals beginning on April 20, 2010, while performing Deepwater
Horizon clean-up work in Moss Point and Biloxi, Mississippi. He
purportedly opted out of the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits
Class Action Settlement Agreement.

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in 2017 claiming toxic exposure on
account of his clean-up work activity, which he alleges caused him
to develop numerous medical conditions. His expert report deadline
was Sept. 23, 2022. He produced no expert reports or testimony
connecting his conditions with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
response by the Sept. 23, 2022 deadline. He made no expert
disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure by the Sept. 23, 2022 deadline either.

Judge Morgan concludes that the Plaintiff has produced no expert
testimony to establish general causation, a requirement set by the
Fifth Circuit in toxic tort cases. Without expert testimony on
general causation, she says the Plaintiff has failed to present a
genuine issue of material fact with respect to his claims of
injuries allegedly caused by his exposure to toxins in oil and
dispersants as a Deepwater Horizon cleanup worker.

Accordingly, Judge Morgan grants the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment. She enters judgment in favor of the Defendants against
Brown on all claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 18, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/z4nvhpbd from Leagle.com.


BSH HOME: Hearing Deadline, Briefing Schedule Continued in Hirsch
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA HIRSCH, PRASANNA
RAMAKRISHNAN, AMANDA CARLTON, and MICHELE O'DELL,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION d/b/a BOSCH, Case No.
8:21-cv-01355-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney
entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue hearing
deadline and briefing schedule for the plaintiff's motion for class
certification as follows:

-- The deadline for this Court to        April 6, 2023
    hear the Plaintiffs' Motion
    for Class Certification is
    continued to:

-- All related briefing deadlines are likewise continued
    per Local Rule 7-11.

BSH Home is a manufacturer of home appliances in Europe and one of
the leading companies in the sector worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TVg5pwat no extra charge.[CC]

CABELA'S LLC: Tucker Sues for Breach of Wiretap Act
---------------------------------------------------
ARLIE TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CABELA'S LLC and CABELA'S RETAIL MO, LLC
Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-03288-DPR (W.D. Mo., Nov. 9, 2022)
arises from the Defendants' violations of the Missouri Wiretap Act,
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,
and for an invasion of the privacy rights of website visitors and a
trespass to chattels.

This is a class action brought against Cabela's for surreptitiously
intercepting and wiretapping the electronic communications of
visitors to its website, www.cabellas.com. Cabela's procures
third-party vendors, such as Microsoft Corporation, to embed
snippets of JavaScript computer code on Defendants' 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 Cabela'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, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all United States citizens and a subclass of Missouri
citizens whose Website Communications were intercepted through
Defendants' procurement and use of Session Replay Code embedded on
the webpages of www.cabelas.com and seeks all civil remedies
provided under the causes of action, including but not limited to
compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Cabela's LLC is an American retailer that specializes in hunting,
fishing, boating, camping, shooting and other outdoor recreation
merchandise.[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@consumerprotectionlegal.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

CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid for Class Certification Due June 30, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAFAEL PASCHOAL, et al.,
v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-07029-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered a scheduling
order as follows:

         Amendment of Pleadings                Deadline

  -- Motion for Class Certification          June 30, 2023
     Filed:

  -- Opposition to Motion for Class          August 28, 2023
     Certification Filed:

  -- Reply in Support of Motion for          October 23, 2023
     Class Certification Filed:

Campbell produces and sells convenience food and beverage products.
The company's product portfolio includes soups, broths and stock.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TQkdr1at no extra charge.[CC]

CANADA: AFN Seeks Judicial Review in On-Reserve Child Welfare Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Forester and Olivia Stefanovich at CBC News reports that the
federal government and the Assembly of First Nations will seek
judicial review of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's decision
rejecting Ottawa's $20-billion offer to settle a class-action
lawsuit over the chronic underfunding of the on-reserve child
welfare system.

Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu and Crown-Indigenous
Relations Minister Marc Miller told reporters in Ottawa the
Liberals want "clarity" on how to address the parts of the deal the
tribunal rejected.

"We'll be continuing to work with the parties to compensate
children that were removed and harmed, but also filed a judicial
review to have the court look at some of the aspects of the
settlement agreement that were not accepted," Hajdu said.

"We do have some disagreements over some elements of the judgment,
and, for that reason, we are filing an appeal," added Miller.

The AFN also has issues with the tribunal's decision, which led the
advocacy organization to file a court challenge of its own,
Manitoba Regional Chief Cindy Woodhouse told a virtual news
conference following the federal announcement.

"The AFN will also seek a judicial review to ensure the rights of
our children and families are fully respected in this process and
that they receive the compensation that's due to them," Woodhouse
said.

"We will also continue to press Canada to examine all options
including seeking a negotiated resolution to get compensation
flowing."

Woodhouse told CBC News the AFN hadn't "ruled out anything" when
asked if the assembly was mulling a court challenge, while the
government refused to say what their plans were.

The class-action settlement, announced in January and signed in
June, pledged to compensate victims of the discriminatory First
Nations child-welfare system, but the entire pact was "conditional"
on the tribunal declaring a pre-existing compensation order from
2019 fulfilled.

Tribunal rejected settlement in October

In an Oct. 24 letter decision, the tribunal said the proposed
settlement substantially covered its standing order, but refused to
declare it fulfilled because some children included by its
compensation ruling would be left out of the class-action
settlement.

Anyone directly affected by a federal tribunal order or decision
can challenge that decision through judicial review "within 30 days
after the time the decision or order was first communicated,"
according to Canada's Federal Court.

The letter is only a summary and not the tribunal's formal written
decision, so the AFN felt it needed to protect its rights while
awaiting the full reasons, Woodhouse said.

"We're looking forward to the full decision, and in the meantime
we're safeguarding ourselves."

The case dates to 2007 when the AFN and Cindy Blackstock filed a
human rights complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
In a landmark 2016 decision, the tribunal found Canada's funding
practices were racist and constituted systematic human rights
violations, a decision which was never challenged.

The tribunal said this racial discrimination was "wilful and
reckless" in 2019 when it issued an order for Canada to pay the
statutory maximum of $40,000 to each victim and certain family
members, which was judicially reviewed last year.

Canada lost that review, and Blackstock, reached by phone following
the announcement, said Canada should have complied and paid the
victims.

"The tribunal made a final order on compensation. That was upheld
by the Federal Court, and Canada should've paid it," Blackstock
said.

"There shouldn't have been any more litigation after that."

Canada has challenged the outcome of that judicial review in the
Federal Court of Appeal, and is due to decide what to do with the
case by early December.

The human rights complaint has already had about 30 legal orders
issued over 15 years, and Canada has yet to secure a victory in any
legal arena that wasn't later overturned, Blackstock said.

"Canada has lost every single one of those reviews, with the
exception of one which was overturned on appeal," she said.

"I don't understand why they're paying taxpayer money on this
losing legal battle that also denies children's rights. That to me
is so disappointing, and totally against the spirit of
reconciliation." [GN]

CAPITAL ONE: Pre-Motion Conference Scheduling Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McNeil v. Capital One
Bank, N.A. Case No. 1:19-cv-00473 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nina
Morrison entered a pre motion conference scheduling order as
follows:

-- A pre-motion conference on the proposed cross-motions for
    summary judgment, motion for class certification, and
    motions to exclude expert testimony will be held on Friday
    January 6, 2023 at 2:00 PM Eastern Time via video
    conference.

-- The parties will be provided with a video conference access
    link via email.

Capital One is an American bank holding company specializing in
credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts,
headquartered in McLean, Virginia with operations primarily in the
United States.[CC]

CAREFUSION RESOURCES: Coles Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kareem Coles, an individual, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
CAREFUSION RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY, a New Jersey Corporation; and DOES
1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00037343-CU-OE-CTL was removed
from the San Diego
County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on Nov. 9, 2022, and assigned Case
No. 3:22-cv-01762-JLS-JLB.

The Complaint asserts the following claim on a class-wide basis:
unfair competition; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay
overtime wages failure to provide required meal periods; failure to
provide required rest periods; failure to reimburse employees for
required expenses; failure to provide wages when due; and failure
to provide accurate itemized statements.[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


CARGILL INC: Specht Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as James Specht, Jerry Kelsey, Tad Larson, on
behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. Cargill,
Inc., JBS USA Food Company, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Tyson Foods,
Inc., Swift Beef Company, National Beef Packing Company, LLC,
Marfrig Global Foods S.A., JBS S.A., JBS Packerland, Inc., Cargill
Meat Solutions Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-02442 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas, to the U.S.
District Court for District of Minnesota on Nov. 15, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-02903-JRT-JFD to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for the Antitrust
Litigation.

Cargill, Incorporated -- https://www.cargill.com/ -- is a privately
held American global food corporation based in Minnetonka,
Minnesota, and incorporated in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          Sean Cooper, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: (816) 984-8100
          Email: Rick@PaulLLP.com
                 Sean@PaulLLP.com


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Settles Chinchilla Labor Suit in CA Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October November 2, 2022,
that it settled a putative class action (Chinchilla v. Carriage
Services, Inc., et al.) filed against the company and several of
its subsidiaries in the Superior court of California, San Joaquin
County (Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0004661) in May 19, 2021.

The plaintiff, a former employee, sought monetary damages on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated current and former
non-exempt employees. The plaintiff claimed that the company failed
to, among other things, pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest
breaks, pay overtime, provide accurately itemized wage statements,
reimburse employees for business expenses, and provide wages when
due.

On January 5, 2022, the parties to the litigation engaged in and
executed a Memorandum of Understanding for class settlement in the
amount of $1.0 million. The parties subsequently executed a Class
Settlement Agreement, and the court granted preliminary approval of
the Class Settlement Agreement on March 29, 2022. The court granted
Final Approval on July 26, 2022, and the company funded the final
settlement in the amount of $1.2 million on August 8, 2022.

Carriage Services, Inc. is a provider of funeral and cemetery
services and merchandise based in Texas.


CHARLES DANIELS: Seeks More Time to File Opposition to Class Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIUS BRADFORD, v.
CHARLES DANIELS, et al. Case No. 2:21-cv-00493-RFB-VCF (D. Nev.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending time to
file an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

Bradford alleges Eighth Amendment violations of conditions of
confinement against the Defendants for depriving him of adequate
outdoor exercise during the summer months because of inadequate
water sources and inadequate access to a toilet for the two-hour
exercise period.

The Defendants seek to extend the date for opposition to Bradford's
motion for class certification to December 12, 2022.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3URS4kPat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron D. Ford, Esq.
          Austin T. Barnum, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          555 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 3900
          Las Vegas, NE 89101
          Telephone: (702) 486-0661
          Facsimile: (702) 486-3773
          E-mail: abarnum@ag.nv.gov

CORE SCIENTIFIC: Faces Pang Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
MEI PANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CORE SCIENTIFIC INC., MICHAEL LEVITT,
MICHAEL TRZUPEK, and DENISE STERLING, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-01191 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 14, 2022) is a class action on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Core Scientific securities between January 3,
2022 and October 26, 2022, inclusive pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the 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 throughout the Class period. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that, due in part to the
expiration of a favorable pricing agreement, the Company was
experiencing increasing power costs; (2) that the Company's largest
customer, Gryphon, lacked the financial resources to purchase the
necessary miner rigs for Core Scientific to host; (3) that the
Company was not providing hosting services to Celsius as required
by their contract; (4) that the Company had implemented an improper
surcharge to pass through power costs to Celsius; (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing alleged breaches of contract, the Company
was reasonably likely to incur liability to defend itself against
Celsius; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
profitability would be adversely impacted; (7) that, as a result,
there was likely substantial doubt as to the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern; (8) and that as a result of the
foregoing, Defendant's positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit.

On this news, Core Scientific's stock fell $0.789, or 78.1%, to
close at $0.221 per share on October 27, 2022, on unusually high
trading volume, the suit alleges.

Core Scientific is a blockchain computing data center provider and
digital asset mining company. It mines digital assets for its own
account and provides hosting services for other large-scale
miners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
          STECKLER WAYNE CHERRY & LOVE PLLC
          12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (972) 387-4040
          Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
          E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com

               - and -

          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and -

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007

CORIZON HEALTH: Seeks Denial of Plaintiffs' Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE MORRELLI, JOSE
ROJAS, JANICE ANDRES, SANDRA CRUZ-PEREZ, VICTORIA MARTINEZ,
VERONICA VIZCARRA, and LAURA PADILLA, v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
1:18-cv-01395-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order denying Plaintiffs' class certification bid.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify two entirely new classes they did
not seek to represent in their complaint:

   (1) RNs and LVNs or other allegedly similarly situated non-
       exempt health care employees who worked in Tulare and
       Fresno counties for Corizon at any time between July 3,
       2013, and the present; and

   (2) RNs and LVNs or other allegedly similarly situated non-
       exempt health care employees who worked in Tulare and
       Fresno counties for Corizon at any time between July 3,
       2013, and the present and where subject to Corizon's
       alternative workweek schedule.

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs' attempt to certify these classes
fails because they are not pled in the Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"). Further, Plaintiffs cannot establish that their claims are
typical of those of the putative classes, or that common issues of
law or fact predominate for either putative class, because
Plaintiffs fail to identify who the "similarly situated non-exempt
health care employees" in that alleged class are or how the alleged
unlawful conduct even applies to them, the Defendant contends.

The proposed classes consist of RNs and LVNs in Tulare and Fresno
County who performed a dizzying number of different duties,
including inmate intake, sick call, emergency care, infirmary care,
segregation care, transfer care and were involved in medication
administration and associated
28 documentation.

In the SAC, Plaintiffs allege that Corizon scheduled Plaintiffs to
work at least three 12.5-hour shifts per work week and paid a
straight time rate for those hours worked, but failed to pay daily
overtime premium wages for the hours they worked in excess of eight
per day.

Corizon is a privately held prison healthcare contractor in the
United States.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EV8eUGat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barbara A. Blackburn, Esq.
          Douglas L. Ropel, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 830-7200
          Facsimile: (916) 561-0828
          E-mail: bblackburn@littler.com
                  dropel@littler.com

                - and -

          Wesley E. Stockard, Esq.
          Rachel Werner, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          3424 Peachtree Road, NE Suite 1200
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 443-3502
          Facsimile: (404) 393-5353
          E-mail: wstockard@littler.com
                  rwerner@littler.com

COTY INC: Settlement Reached in Massachusetts Pension Fund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
COTY 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 8, 2022, that the parties involved
in the Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund suit reached a
settlement to resolve the issue.

A consolidated stockholder class and derivative action (the "Tender
Offer Litigation") concerning the tender offer by Cottage Holdco
B.V. (the "Cottage Tender Offer") and the Schedule 14D-9 is pending
against certain current and former directors of the Company, JAB
Holding Company S.à r.l., JAB Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V.,
and Cottage Holdco B.V. in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The Company was named as a nominal defendant.

The case, which was filed on May 6, 2019, was captioned
Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund v. Harf et al., Case No.
2019-0336-AGB. On June 14, 2019, plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed a Verified Amended Class Action and Derivative
Complaint ("Amended Complaint"). After defendants responded to the
Amended Complaint, on October 21, 2019, plaintiffs filed a Verified
Second Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Second
Amended Complaint"), alleging that the directors and JAB Holding
Company S.à r.l., JAB Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and
Cottage Holdco B.V. breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company’s stockholders and breached the Stockholders Agreement.

The Second Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary
relief.

On November 21, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss certain
claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint, and certain of the
director defendants also answered the complaint.

On May 7, 2020, plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal without
prejudice of JAB Holding Company S.à r.l. from the action.

On August 17, 2020, the court denied the remaining motions to
dismiss.

As of October 17, 2022, the parties to the Tender Offer Litigation
have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter, which
is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s
financial results.

COTY Inc. manufactures, markets, sells and distributes branded
beauty products based in New York.


CRUTCHFIELD NEW MEDIA: Suris Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crutchfield New
Media, LLC. The case is styled as Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Crutchfield New Media,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06961 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2022).

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

Crutchfield -- https://www.crutchfield.com/ -- is an award-winning
North American electronics retailer, specializing in categories
like mobile audio, speakers, TVs, headphones and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


DALLAS MAVERICKS: Robertson Class Status Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pierce Robertson, et al.,
v. Mark Cuban, Dallas Basketball Limited, d/b/a Dallas Mavericks,
and Stephen Ehrlich, Case No. 1:22-cv-22538 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Roy K. Altman entered an order denying without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

-- The Plaintiffs may refile their motion after we rule on the
    pending Motion to Dismiss.

-- The Court also deny as moot the Defendantsm Motion for
    extension of time since we've denied the Plaintiffs' Motion
    for Class Certification, the Court says.

-- Finally, we deny the Defendants' Motion to Stay and for a
    Protective Order. "Motions to stay discovery are not favored
    because when discovery is delayed or prolonged it can create
    case management problems which impede the Court's
    responsibility to expedite discovery and cause unnecessary
    litigation expenses and problems, the Court adds.[CC]

DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Suit Over Alleged Sex-Trafficking Operation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Khadeeja Safdar and David Benoit at fnlondon.com women who accused
Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse are suing Deutsche Bank and
JPMorgan, saying the banks facilitated Epstein's alleged
sex-trafficking operation and ignored red flags about their wealthy
client.

The two lawsuits seek class-action status and unspecified financial
damages. They were both brought by lawyers that have represented
many of the late financier's accusers. The suits were filed in
federal court in New York on 24 November

"The time has come for the real enablers to be held responsible,
especially his wealthy friends and the financial institutions that
played an integral role," said one of the lawyers, Bradley Edwards,
in a written statement. "These victims were wronged, by many, not
just Epstein. He did not act alone."

A Deutsche Bank spokesman said, "We believe this claim lacks merit
and will present our arguments in court."

A JPMorgan spokesman declined to comment.

The Deutsche Bank suit cites many of the findings from an
investigation by New York state's financial regulator into that
bank's relationship with Epstein. The JPMorgan suit cites the
relationship between Epstein and a former top JPMorgan executive
that was investigated by UK regulators.

The unnamed woman suing JPMorgan is a former ballet dancer in New
York who was recruited by another young female and sexually abused
by Epstein from 2006 through 2013, according to her suit. She
alleges she was also trafficked to his friends. Large sums of money
were withdrawn from JPMorgan to make cash payments to her and other
women, the suit says. The suit alleges that Epstein used the cash
to pay for sex acts.

A different woman suing Deutsche Bank was sexually abused by
Epstein and trafficked to his friends from about 2003 until about
2018 and was also paid in cash for sex acts, according to her suit.
The bank ignored red flags including payments to numerous young
women and large withdrawals of cash, the suit says. New York's
regulator found Epstein, his related entities and associates had
more than 40 accounts at Deutsche Bank.

The lawsuits state that both banks assisted and participated in
Epstein's alleged sex trafficking by enabling him to make payments
to women for sex acts and that the banks profited from Epstein's
activities. Both banks worked with Epstein for years after he
pleaded guilty in a Florida state court in 2008 to soliciting
prostitution from a minor. Epstein died in jail in 2019 while
awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.

The suits allege the banks violated human-trafficking laws by
aiding Epstein with access to accounts and cash. Banks must know
who their customers are and what the accounts are being used for to
police money laundering and avoid enabling criminal activity.

The suit against JPMorgan says that Epstein started banking with
the firm sometime around 1998 and developed a close relationship
with Jes Staley, who was then head of private banking. Epstein
turned to Deutsche Bank when the ties with JPMorgan ended around
2013, the lawsuits say.

The suit says JPMorgan turned a blind eye to Epstein's activities
in exchange for financial gain. Epstein introduced Staley to
wealthy clients and helped the bank arrange its deal to buy a
majority stake in Highbridge Capital in 2004, at the peak of
Epstein's alleged sex trafficking, according to the suit.

The suit states that JPMorgan also housed accounts for longtime
Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell and that she received about
$31m from Epstein between 1999 and 2007 as alleged compensation for
her help with sex trafficking. After Epstein pleaded guilty in
2008, Staley visited him while he was serving his sentence in
Florida, the suit says.

Staley later left JPMorgan and became CEO of Barclays in December
2015. He resigned in November 2021 amid an investigation by UK
regulators into his relationship with Epstein and the bank's
disclosures about their ties. The two men exchanged more than a
thousand emails during Staley's time at JPMorgan, the suit says.

"I deeply regret having had any relationship with Jeffrey Epstein,"
Staley told reporters in 2020. Staley previously said his
relationship with Epstein was professional and ended before he took
over Barclays.

A lawyer for Staley declined to comment.

The suit says Mary Erdoes, currently head of JPMorgan's asset- and
wealth-management division, also protected Epstein as a client
after other executives questioned why the bank worked with him. A
JPMorgan spokesman has previously disputed Erdoes protected Epstein
and said she only recalled one formal meeting with him, "which was
the day she fired him as a client."

The JPMorgan spokesman declined to comment on Erdoes's behalf.

Paul Morris, who was among Epstein's private wealth managers at
JPMorgan and then at Deutsche Bank, emailed his bosses at Deutsche
Bank in 2013 to tell them that Epstein's accounts could generate
$100m to $300m in money flows and $2m to $4m in annual fees, and
the men agreed to add him as a client despite his prior conviction,
according to the suit against Deutsche Bank.

Morris didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

New York state's financial regulator fined Deutsche Bank $150m in
2020 for failing to properly monitor its dealings with the
convicted sex offender and other lapses. Deutsche Bank said at the
time that it was a mistake to take Epstein as a client and
acknowledged weaknesses in its processes, and that it had learned
from its mistakes.

In its 2020 findings, the New York regulator said some of the
payments Epstein made from his Deutsche Bank accounts were
suspicious. For example, it said, Epstein sent $2.65m in more than
120 wire transfers to beneficiaries of an entity called the
Butterfly Trust. Some payments went to people who had been named as
co-conspirators in his past cases involving sexual abuse or to
women with Eastern European surnames for hotel expenses, tuition
and rent, the regulator said.

"Knowing that they would earn millions of dollars from facilitating
Epstein's sex trafficking, and from its relationship with Epstein,
Deutsche Bank chose profit over following the law," the suit
states.

Deutsche Bank ended ties with Epstein after the Miami Herald's
reporting in 2018 that detailed accusations by women who said that,
as girls, they were victims of Epstein. But a Deutsche Bank
official wrote reference letters to other banks, according to the
suit.

Epstein left an estate worth at least $577m that has been the
subject of litigation. Last year, Maxwell was convicted by a
federal jury for her role in helping recruit and groom teenage
girls for him. [GN]

EQUITY BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Customer Overdraft Fees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Bancshares 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 8, 2022, that the Company
intends to defend itself from a customer overdraft fees class suit.


Equity Bank is party to a lawsuit was filed on January 28, 2022, in
the Sedgwick County, Kansas District Court on behalf of one of the
Company’s customers alleging improperly collected overdraft fees.
The plaintiff seeks to have the case certified as a class action.

The Bank has filed a motion to dismiss this claim on its merits and
on the grounds that the defendant must litigate any such claims in
arbitration.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit, and it
intends to vigorously defend against the claim asserted.

Equity Bank is party to a lawsuit was filed on February 2, 2022, in
the Jackson County, Missouri District Court on behalf of one of its
customers alleging improperly collected overdraft fees. The
plaintiff seeks to have the case certified as a class action. The
Bank has filed a motion to dismiss this claim on its merits and on
the grounds that the defendant must litigate any such claims in
arbitration. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without
merit, and it intends to vigorously defend against the claim
asserted.

Equity Bancshares, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered in
Wichita, Kansas.

FUJIFILM NORTH: Faces Inong Suit Over Defective X-Pro3 Camera
-------------------------------------------------------------
JETHRO INONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FUJIFILM NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-09720 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2022)
manufactures, markets, and sells defective camera, the X-Pro3 under
the Fujifilm brand ("Product").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, despite the marketing of
the Product as durable, capable of functioning reliably and
remaining in proper working condition for years to come, it did not
function reliably or remain free of flaws, damage, or
deficiencies.

The ribbon connector cables of the Product were defective, in that
the mechanisms loosened or disconnected on their own after normal
and intended use. This defect in turn caused the viewfinders and
the LCD touchscreen to glitch or stop working altogether, affecting
the function and capabilities of the device. Had the Plaintiff and
proposed class members known the truth, they would not have bought
the Product or would have paid less for it. As a result of the
false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a
premium price, approximately no less than $1,799, excluding tax and
sales, higher than similar products, represented in a
non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the
misleading representations and omissions, says the suit.

FUJIFILM NORTH AMERICA CORP. develops, manufactures, and sells
digital and analog photographic imaging systems. The Company offers
video systems, endoscopes, peripherals, ultrasound system, and
electronic medical records to medical, graphic arts, optics,
enterprise storage, motion picture, and photography industries.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HOME DEPOT: Discriminates African American Employees, Israel Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN ISRAEL and on behalf of himself and other persons v. HOME
DEPOT INC. INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01447-JHE (N.D. Ala., Nov. 14,
2022) alleges that the Defendant engaged in a policy of race
discrimination in the termination of the African American employees
pursuant to a disciplinary pointing policy in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. section 1981.

Mr. Israel is an African American male, and a resident of Jefferson
County, Alabama. He worked for the Defendant from December 2015
until June 23, 2021 as a General Warehouse Associate. In the ten
months prior to his June 2021 termination, Mr. Israel allegedly
according to the company had a combination of leave early and/or
unexcused absences 12 different times. Mr. Israel disputes the
accuracy and that the policy was correctly applied, as he was
assessed unexcused absence points when the absences were due to be
excused and moreover, he observed white persons (Jared Yates and
Jonathan Coffey) leaving early without being assessed points.

While the majority of employees holding the same classification as
Israel were African American, they were terminated at a much higher
rate than the white employees who retained their positions for
greater lengths of time despite similar attendance records, Mr.
Israel says.

Mr. Israel worked for the company for six years prior to
termination and lost his job after working diligently through the
COVID period.

Accordingly, the attendance policy is discretionary as employees
are subject to discipline for violations, but not necessarily
disciplined for violations. That unfettered discrimination allows
the African American employees to be terminated more frequently
than their white counterparts, the suit added.

Home Depot is a home improvement retailer with locations throughout
the United States, including the distribution center in McCalla,
Alabama where Israel was formerly employed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Winston, Esq.
          Roderick T., Esq.
          WINSTON COOKS, LLC
          420 20th Street North, Suite 2200
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 482-3551
          Facsimile: (205) 278-587

INTUIT INC: Discloses Subscribers' Data to Meta, VPPA Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH MOLONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INTUIT, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-06351 (N.D. Ill., Nov.
14, 2022) alleges that the Defendant discloses to a third party,
Meta Platforms, data containing Plaintiff's and other
digital-subscribers Class Members' personally identifiable
information or Facebook ID and the computer file containing video
and its corresponding URL viewed in violations of the federal Video
Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA").

Accordingly, the Defendant installed the Facebook tracking pixel,
which enables it to disclose Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Personal Viewing Information to Facebook, because it benefits
financially from the advertising and information services that stem
from use of the pixel. When an Intuit subscriber enters the website
or App and watches prerecorded Video Media, the website or App
allegedly sends to Facebook certain information about the viewer,
including their identity and the media content the digital
subscriber watched. Specifically, Intuit sends to Facebook the
video content name, its URL, and, most notably, the viewers'
Facebook ID, says the suit.

The Defendant allegedly chose to disregard Plaintiff's and hundreds
of thousands of other Intuit subscribers' statutorily protected
privacy rights by releasing their sensitive data to Facebook.

The Plaintiff seeks legal and equitable remedies to redress and put
a stop to Defendant's practices of intentionally disclosing its
subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook in knowing
violation of VPPA.

Intuit is a business software company that develops and sells
financial software solutions, such as TurboTax and QuickBooks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Adam Florek, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          73 W. Monroe, 5th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 444-0734
          E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                  aflorek@peifferwolf.com

JDM EXPEDITE INC: King Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JDM Expedite Inc. The
case is styled as Kenny King, James White, Hodari Worldwide
Logistics, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JDM Expedite Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06393 (N.D. Ill.,
Nov. 15, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

JDM Expedite -- https://jdmexpedite.com/ -- is a family owned dry
van company based out of Chicago land area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J Wilmes, Esq.
          Emily Rees Brown, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          70 W. Madison St., Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 580-0100
          Email: cwilmes@hsplegal.com
                 ebrown@hsplegal.com


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Schnur Suit Alleges Illegal Website Wiretapping
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN SCHNUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-01621-RJC (W.D. PA., Nov. 16, 2022) is a class action
brought against JetBlue for wiretapping the electronic
communications of visitors to its website, www.jetblue.com in
violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Control Act.

According to the complaint, JetBlue procures third-party vendors,
such as FullStory, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code
("Session Replay Code") on JetBlue'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 JetBlue'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
other electronic communications in real-time ("Website
Communications"). These third-party vendors (collectively, "Session
Replay Providers") create and deploy the Session Replay Code at
JetBlue's request.

After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications,
JetBlue and the Session Replay Providers use those Website
Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to
www.jetblue.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video replay
of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to JetBlue for
analysis. JetBlue's procurement of 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
JetBlue's website for the entire duration of their website
interaction, says the suit.

JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION provides non-stop passenger flight
services. The Company offers flights and vacation packages to
hundred plus destinations, legroom in coach, free wi-fi, live TV,
movies, snacks, and other related services. JetBlue Airways serves
customers worldwide. [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
          Email: gary@lcllp.com
                 kelly@lcllp.com
                 jamisen@lcllp.com
                 elizabeth@lcllp.com
                 nickc@lcllp.com
                 patrick@lcllp.com

JOHN EDWARD BIORD: Curry Seeks Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CURRY; individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. JOHN EDWARD BIORD,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02455-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a putative class of film
      production crew members who worked for Defendant John
      Edward Biord on the motion picture "On Smoother Dirt;"

   2. authorizing Plaintiff to proceed as a collective action
      under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of Plaintiff and
      other similarly situated employees;

   3. directing the Defendant to provide Plaintiff's counsel
      with the film production crew contact information so that
      they may be notified of the lawsuit;

   4. authorizing notice through first-class mail and email, a
      60 day notice period, with a 25 day reminder notice to
      those who have not responded;

   5. approving that Notice be provided to the collective
      class;"

   6. approving Plaintiff's proposed Opt-In Consent Form.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3i0LQQRat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael B. Schoenfeld, Esq.
          James D. Fagan, Jr., Esq.
          STANFORD FAGAN LLC
          2540 Lakewood Avenue SW
          Atlanta, GA 30315
          Telephone: (404) 622-0521, ext. 2244
          E-mail: michaels@sfglawyers.com
                  jfagan@sfglawyers.com

                - and-

          Robert S. Giolito, Esq.
          ROBERT S. GIOLITO PC
          1626 Montana Ave., Ste 201
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: (310) 897-1082
          E-mail: rgiolito@giolitolaw.com

JOHN PAUL: Brunette Dry Shampoo Contains Benzene, Nelson Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karly Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, Case No. 1:22-cv-06364
(N.D. Ill., Nov. 14, 2022) alleges that Paul Mitchell Invisiblewear
Brunette Dry Shampoo contains dangerously high levels of benzene.

The Product at issue is a dry shampoo, which is a product designed
to absorb the dirt, oil, and grease of the scalp without washing
it. The Plaintiff and Class members purchased and used the Product
and were therefore exposed to, or risked being exposed to, the
harmful presence of benzene in the Products, Mr. Nelson claims.

Valisure, an independent laboratory, analyzed 148 unique batches
from 34 brands of dry shampoo. Valisure identified ten brands of
dry shampoo which contained levels of benzene at 2 ppm or higher,
including the Product at issue in this case.

Valisure's testing results were confirmed by the voluntary recalls
of several dry shampoo products manufactured by Procter & Gamble
and Unilever which were found to contain benzene. Valisure
specifically measured benzene concentrations from 0.97 to 5.21 ppm
in the Product.

The presence of benzene in the Product renders the Product
misbranded and adulterated and therefore illegal and unfit for sale
in trade or commerce. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the
Product had they been truthfully and accurately labeled, the suit
claims.

Paul Mitchell was established in 1980 with the purported mission of
providing luxury hair care at an affordable price.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
                - and -

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

                - and -

          Erin J. Ruben, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27605
          Telephone: (919) 600-5009
          E-mail: eruben@milberg.com

KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that
discovery is ongoing in the securities class suit filed against the
Company in a California federal court.

In June 2020, a similar and separate putative securities class
action was filed against Kandi and certain of its current and
former directors and officers in California federal court.

This action was transferred to the New York federal court in
September 2020, Kandi moved to dismiss in March 2021, and that
motion was granted in October 2021.

The plaintiff in this case subsequently filed an amended complaint,
Kandi moved to dismiss that complaint in January 2022, and the
motion  was granted in part and denied in part in September 2022.


Discovery is ongoing as to the remaining claims and defendants.

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc.  is a producer and manufacturer of
electric vehicle products based in China.

KAV HEALTH: McLemore Suit Stayed Pending 6th Cir. Ruling in Brooke
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JORDYN McLEMORE, et al., Plaintiffs v. KAV HEALTH
GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-155 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate
Judge Caroline H. Gentry of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division (Dayton), grants the
Defendant's Motion to Stay Pending Decision By Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

The putative Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and Rule 23
class action comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to
Stay Proceedings. In its Motion, the Defendant argues that the
Court should stay these proceedings because a controlling legal
issue -- namely, the legal standard that applies to certifications
of collective actions under the FLSA -- is being decided by the
Sixth Circuit in the cross-appeals captioned Brooke Clark et al. v.
A&L Home Care and Training Center LLC, et al., Nos. 22-3101 and
22-3102.

In its Reply Brief, the Defendant states that the Sixth Circuit has
scheduled oral argument in Clark for Dec. 7, 2022. It argues that
judicial economy favors a stay because the legal standard
identified by the Sixth Circuit will impact discovery and briefing
on the issue of class certification. It also cites several
decisions from this Court that have stayed other pending putative
FLSA collective actions until after Clark is decided.

The Plaintiffs oppose the Motion, arguing that a stay will unduly
delay these proceedings and will prejudice the Plaintiffs because
of the running of the applicable statute of limitations. They
contend that some courts have allowed FLSA collective actions to
proceed notwithstanding the Clark appeal, although they concede
that those courts were not asked to stay their proceedings.
Finally, they argue that it is unknown how long it will take the
Sixth Circuit to issue its decision, and they should not be
required to wait a long period of time before pursuing their
claims.

Judge Gentry agrees that a stay of these proceedings will further
judicial economy and simplify the issues by postponing discovery
and briefing on the issue of class certification until the parties
and the Court have been informed of the applicable legal standard.
Therefore, the balance of factors weighs in favor of a stay. She
recognizes, however, that a stay of proceedings could prejudice the
Plaintiffs and the potential opt-in plaintiffs due to the running
of the statute of limitations. Therefore, she will grant the
Plaintiffs' alternative request for equitable tolling of the
statute of limitations for the Plaintiffs and all potential opt-in
plaintiffs.

For these reasons, Judge Gentry grants the Defendant's Motion to
Stay Proceedings and stays the proceedings in the matter. She also
grants the Plaintiff's request for equitable tolling of the statute
of limitations for the FLSA claims. The parties are ordered to
schedule a status conference with District Judge Rose within 14
days of the Sixth Circuit's issuance of its decision in Clark.

Any party may, within 14 days after the Order is filed, file and
serve on the opposing party a motion for reconsideration by a
District Judge. The motion must specifically designate the order or
part in question and the basis for any objection. Responses to
objections are due 10 days after objections are filed and replies
by the objecting party are due seven days thereafter. The District
Judge, upon consideration of the motion, will set aside any part of
this Order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

The Order is in full force and effect, notwithstanding the filing
of any objections, unless stayed by the Magistrate Judge or
District Judge.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 18, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrymtk7u from Leagle.com.


KELLY SERVICES: Bazine Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Samy Bazine, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL, LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company; KELLY SERVICES USA, LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company; MEDI MALL, INC., a North Carolina
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV404025
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 Nov. 15, 2022, and assigned Case
No. 5:22-cv-07170.

The Plaintiff premises his Unfair Competition Law claim on
Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code. He
claims that the Defendants violated the Labor Code by: failing to
provide the Plaintiff with meal and/or rest periods in accordance
with California law; failing to pay the Plaintiff premium wages for
missed meal and/or rest periods; failing to pay the Plaintiff
premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular
rate of pay; failing to pay the Plaintiff at least minimum wage for
all hours worked; failing to pay the Plaintiff overtime and double
time wages at the correct rate by failing to include all applicable
remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; failing to
reimburse the Plaintiff for all necessary business expenses; and
failing to pay the Plaintiff all final wages following separation
of his employment.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lorraine P. Ocheltree, Esq.
          Maryam Maleki, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          Spear Tower
          One Market Place, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1127
          Phone: (415) 957-3080
          Facsimile: (415) 957-3001
          Email: LPOcheltree@duanemorris.com
                 mmaleki@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          Gerald L. Maatman, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
          Tyler Z. Zmick, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 499-6700
          Facsimile: (312) 279-6780
          Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com
                 jariley@duanemorris.com
                 tzzmick@duanemorris.com


KEYSTONE RURAL HEALTH: K H Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as K H, A minor, S H, A minor, Virginia Johnson,
Guardian, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Keystone Rural Health Center doing business as:
Keystone Health, Case No. 22-03277, was removed from the Franklin
County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 16, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01836-JPW to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Keystone Health -- https://keystonehealth.org/ -- is a medical
clinic staffed by a diverse team of primary care providers serving
the greater Franklin County Pennsylvania region.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

          Anthony Parkhill, Esq.
          Riley Prince, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C
          205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
          Chicago, IL 60606

               - and -

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 621-2000

               - and -

          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Email: jbk@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (610) 601-6748
          Email: mbd@sstriallawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benjamin D. Wanger, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1325 Market Street, Suite 33
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 564-1601
          Email: bwanger@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Carrie Dettmer Slye, Esq.
          BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
          312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4074
          Phone: (513) 852-2626
          Fax: (513) 929-0303
          Email: cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Casie D. Collignon, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 861-0600
          Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com


KEYSTONE RURAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Hoos Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN HOOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KEYSTONE RURAL HEALTH CENTER, d/b/a KEYSTONE HEALTH,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01817-CCC (M.D. Pa., Nov. 14, 2022) alleges that
the Defendant fails to secure personally identifiable information
(PII) and protected health information (PHI), including name,
Social Security number, and records regarding patient care of
approximately 235,237 individuals.

On July 28, 2022, one or more malicious actors gained access to
Defendant's computer network and systems. The actor(s) had access
to Defendant's computer network and systems from July 28, 2022, to
August 19, 2022, the suit says.

On August 19, 2022, the Defendant became aware of the Data Breach
because some of its computer systems were shut down for a period of
time. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation, which
concluded at an unknown date before October. The investigation
found the Data Breach resulted in the malicious actor(s) copying
and exfiltrating substantial amounts of patient PII and PHI, the
suit claims.

On October 14, 2022, the Defendant ultimately admitted to the Data
Breach and began notifying the 235,237 individuals, including
Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class. On or about the same
day, the Defendant publicly acknowledged the data security incident
to the United States Department of Health and Human Services'
Office for Civil Rights (DHHS). The Defendant's notice sent to
impacted individuals allegedly fails to explain how the breach
happened, how many people were impacted, and why the unauthorized
party had unfettered access to Plaintiff's and the Class's
Sensitive Information. The Defendant's failure to timely detect and
adequately notify breach victims violates state and federal law and
has made Plaintiff and members of the Class vulnerable to a present
and continuing risk of fraud and identity theft, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class therefore bring
this lawsuit seeking remedies including damages, reimbursement of
out-of-pocket-costs, and equitable and injunctive relief, including
improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual
audits, and identity protection services funded by the Defendant.

Keystone provides an array of medical services in several practice
areas, including family medicine, internal medicine, women's
health, pediatric medicine, pediatric dental, dental, urgent care,
behavioral health, foot and ankle care, chiropractic medicine,
pharmacy, and speech therapy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: gary@lcllp.com
                 jamisen@lcllp.com
                 nickc@lcllp.com

                - and -

          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          Jason P. Johnston, Esq.
          Michael J. Laird, Esq.
          Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  jason.johnston@zimmreed.com
                  michael.laird@zimmreed.com
                  rachel.tack@zimmreed.com

                - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          Nathan I. Reiter III, Esq.
          THE JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Ave., Suite 300
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372-1300
          E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
                  nathan@yourattorney.com

LARRY'S EXPRESS: Elhindi Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Larry's Express
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Amer Elhindi, and other
similarly situated individuals v. Larry's Express Corporation,
Larry Rodriguez, Case No. 1:22-cv-23740-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 15,
2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Larry's Express Corporation is a licensed and DOT registred
trucking company running freight hauling business from Miami,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: (305) 446-1500
          Fax: (305) 446-1502
          Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


LG ELECTRONICS: Refrigerator's Ice Machines Defective, Heckner Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HECKNER; ANDREA HECKNER, and ROBIN BARDSLEY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LG
ELECTRONICS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-06629-SRC-JRA
(D.N.J., Nov. 15, 2022) is a class action arising from LG's knowing
sale of LG-brand refrigerators equipped with defective ice machines
that produce so called "Craft Ice," large balls of slow-melting ice
intended for use in beverages ("Class Refrigerators").

According to the complaint, Class Refrigerators include all
LG-brand models equipped with the Craft Ice Maker feature, which,
upon information and belief, LG brought to market in approximately
2019. Each and every Class Refrigerator suffers from an identical,
latent, and pervasive defect in materials, workmanship, and design
that eventually renders the Craft Ice Maker equipped in Class
Refrigerators, which are identical from an assembly and mechanical
engineering standpoint regardless of the model in which they are
equipped—inoperable well in advance of the refrigerator's service
life (the "Defect").

As a direct and proximate result of the Defect, the Class
Refrigerators' Craft Ice Maker—whether originally equipped in
Class Refrigerators or installed as a replacement part after the
original eventually fails—freezes, jams and ceases to operate
within months of use. As a result of LG's refusal to cure the
Defect, the Plaintiffs have been deprived of the benefit of the
parties' bargain. Had LG disclosed the Defect prior to purchase,
the Plaintiffs would not have purchased a Class Refrigerator, says
the suit.

LG ELECTRONICS OF USA, INC. manufactures and distributes consumer
electronic products. The Company offers light emission diode
televisions, mobile phones, monitors, refrigerators, washing
machines, dryers, air conditioners, and projectors. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Zoe Aaron, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         405 E 50th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (856) 938-9023
         Email: zaaron@milberg.com

              - and -

         Gary Klinger, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
         PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         227 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (847)-208-4585
         Email: gklinger@milberg.com

              - and -

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

              - and -

         Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
         Edward A. Khatskin, Esq.
         CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
         & SPRENGEL LLP
         135 S. LaSalle Street, 3210
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 782-4880
         Facsimile: (312) 782-7785
         Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                ekhatskin@caffertyclobes.com

              - and -

         Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
         CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
         205 N. Monroe St.
         Media, PA 19063
         Telephone: (215) 864-2800
         Facsimile: (215) 964-2808
         Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com


LIVE OAK BANCSHARES: Settlement in McAlear Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October November 2, 2022,
that on April 28, 2022, the court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement in Joseph McAlear' class suit.

On March 12, 2021, a purported class action was filed against the
company in the United States District court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, "Joseph McAlear, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Live Oak Bancshares,
Inc., et al."

The complaint alleged the existence of an agreement between the
company, nCino, Inc., and Apiture, LLC in which those companies
purportedly sought to restrain the mobility of employees in
violation of antitrust laws by agreeing not to solicit or hire each
other's employees.

The complaint alleged violations of Section 1 of the federal
Sherman Act and violations of Sections 75-1 and 75-2 of the North
Carolina General Statutes. The plaintiff sought monetary damages,
including treble damages, entitlement to restitution, disgorgement,
attorneys' fees, and pre-and post-judgment interest.

On October 12, 2021, the company reached an agreement to settle the
case with a proposed class of all persons (with certain exclusions)
employed by the company or its wholly-owned subsidiary, Live Oak
Banking company, Apiture, Inc. or nCino, Inc. in North Carolina at
any time from January 27, 2017, through March 31, 2021. In the
agreement, the company agreed to pay $3.9 million.

On October 13, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, which the court granted by order
entered on November 23, 2021. After class-wide noticing, the
plaintiff filed a motion for final approval on March 28, 2022,
which the court granted by order entered on April 28, 2022.

Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. is a bank holding company based in North
Carolina.


LYONS MAGNUS: Products Contain Cronobacter Sakazakii, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTA SINICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LYONS MAGNUS, LLC, TRU ASEPTICS, LLC, Case No.
1:22-at-00898 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 11, 2022) alleges that the
Defendants fail to ensure the quality of their products that led to
the recall of certain beverages, liquid coffee, nutritional shakes,
and other supplements due to Cronobacter Sakazakii bacteria
contamination concerns.

Recalled products included in products labeled under the brands
Oatly(TM), Stumptown(TM), Glucerna(TM), Intelligentsia(TM),
Aloha(TM), Kate Farms(TM), and Premier Protein(TM).

The Defendants state that the supplements and products that its
sells are "support health," "nutritional," and often "alternatives"
to other products, such as dairy, the Plaintiff says. The
Defendants' packing and labeling further emphasize quality and safe
ingredients that are suitable for consumption by physically
vulnerable persons, young children, and those who have specific
dietary restrictions or seek a healthier lifestyle, the Plaintiff
added.

On August 1, 2022, the Defendants recalled 53 products due to
potential bacterial contamination. Particularly, the bacteria
Cronobacter Sakazakii were mentioned as a possible contaminant. The
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and Center for Disease Control
("CDC") have declared bacteria, particularly Cronobacter Sakazakii,
to be particularly harmful to all ages of persons, particularly
those seeking a health supplement and the elderly, noting that
death is often possible.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct, the
Plaintiff and the Class have suffered actual damages in that they
have purchased Protein and Supplement that is worth less than the
price they paid, which was a safe to consume product, and that they
would not have purchased at all had they known of the presence or
risk of Cronobacter Sakazakii or other unnatural ingredients that
do not conform to the products' labels, packaging, advertising and
statements, says the suit.

Lyons Magnus is a food service corporation with its headquarters in
Fresno, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
          Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 614-8888
          Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
                 blake@akimlawfirm.com
                 pauld@akimlawfirm.com

M & A TREE SERVICE: Leiva Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Wilfredo Leiva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. M & A TREE SERVICE, INC., and MICHAEL TOMAIO,
individually, Case No. 3:22-cv-06641 (D.N.J., Nov. 16, 2022), is
brought against the Defendants to recover the overtime compensation
as a result the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

The Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff and members of the putative collective to regularly work
in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime
compensation as required by applicable federal and New Jersey state
law. The Defendants refused to pay the Plaintiff at one and one
half times their regular rate of pay for the hours that they worked
in a work week in excess of 40 hours, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants for over two years
from September 2020 through early November 2022, and worked as a
landscape
laborer.

The Defendants own, operate, and/or manage tree maintenance and
removal and landscaping business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: (201) 687-9977
          Fax: (201) 595-0308
          Email: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
                 jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


MARCUS POLLARD: Seeks Reconsideration of Nov. 3 Class Cert Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA FITZGERALD, an
individual, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
MARCUS POLLARD, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00848-JM-NLS (S.D. Cal.),
the Defendants move for reconsideration of the Court's Order
certifying a class.

The Defendants bring this motion on the grounds that the Court
erred in modifying the class from a procedural-rights class to a
substantive, constitutional-rights class, and that the modified
definition either improperly assumes an illegal search for each
visitor (through the insertion of the wording "as evidenced by a
failure to provide the basis for the search on a Form 888 -- Notice
of Request For Search,") or renders the class definition ambiguous
and, consequently, indefinite and unascertainable; the new class
definition does not meet Rule 23(a)'s and 11 23(b)(3)'s
requirements because the determination of reasonable suspicion is a
highly individualized inquiry that cannot be resolved on a
class-wide basis; and the Defendants have been prejudiced by the
Court's substantial modification of the class definition, without
the benefit of briefing.

The Court defined a class that the Plaintiff did not propose in her
complaint or motion for class certification and neither party
briefed. The Court first hinted at potentially modifying the class
definition during the hearing on the motion for class
certification, then did so in the November 3 Order.

The Court issued its order on Plaintiff's Motion on November 3,
2022. In the Order the Court sua sponte modified the class
definition to:

   "Those visitors, from May 5, 2018 to the present, to the
   Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility who were required to
   submit to an unclothed search as a condition to visiting an
   inmate and were so searched in the absence of individualized
   reasonable suspicion to believe that the visitor intended to
   smuggle contraband into the Prison, as evidenced by a failure
   to provide the basis for the search on a Form 888 - Notice of
   Request For Search."

The Defendants are C. Moore, M. Pollard, A. Jackson, C.
Mann-Little, and H. Cruz.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Om9m70at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Defendants C. Moore, H. Cruz, C. Mann-Little, A.
Jackson and M. Pollard are:

          Rob Bonta, Esq.
          Damon G. Mcclain, Esq.
          Terrence F. Sheehy, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101 P.O. Box 85266
          San Diego, CA 92186-5266
          Telephone: (619) 738-9545
          Facsimile: (619) 645-2581
          E-mail: Terrence.Sheehy@doj.ca.gov

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Lalonde Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Lalonde, individually and as a representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the MassMutual Thrift
Plan, Plaintiff v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Roger
Crandall, Investment Fiduciary Committee, Plan Administrative
Committee, and John and Jane Does 1–20, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-30147 (D. Mass., Nov. 9, 2022) is a civil enforcement
action brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to Sections 502(a)(2) and
(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and
for violations of ERISA's fiduciary duties and prohibited
transactions provisions.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated ERISA's
fiduciary duties by managing the Plan and its assets through a
process that favored the economic interests of Massachusetts Mutual
Life Insurance Company over those of Plan participants and
beneficiaries. This flawed process resulted in a series of outcomes
that caused the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries to
sacrifice retirement savings to poor performance and swollen costs
which inured to the benefit of MassMutual's bottom line.

Among other things, Defendants (1) retained a series of excessively
expensive and poorly performing proprietary mutual funds that are
rarely, if ever, selected by objective and non-conflicted
fiduciaries of large retirement plans like the MassMutual Plan; (2)
failed ensure that the Plan held the least expensive share class
and/or investment vehicle for the investment strategies Defendants
selected for the MassMutual Plan; (3) caused the MassMutual Plan to
transfer a substantial portion of its assets into MassMutual's
general account in connection with the Plan's stable value
investment, granting the Company a bounty to use for its business,
without adequately compensating the Plan for the risk this imposed
on the Plan or considering alternative stable value products with
better terms; and (4) caused the MassMutual Plan use pay MassMutual
unreasonable recordkeeping fees while attempting to off-load that
business line to Empower, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiff was an employee of MassMutual for seventeen years
from 2004 until 2021, and remains a participant in the MassMutual
Plan.

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. is a mutual life insurance
company based in Springfield, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
          Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20005  
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsutter@cohenmilstein.com
          
               - and -

          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Eleanor Frisch, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          100 S. Fifth Street, Suite 1900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: krichter@cohenmilstein.com
                  efrisch@cohenmilstein.com

MASSACHUSETTS: Installs Spyware on Mobile Devices, Wright Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WRIGHT, JOHNNY KULA, on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated others v. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, a
Massachusetts agency, and MARGRET R. COOKE, Commissioner of the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health, in her official
capacity, Case No. 1:22-cv-11936 (D. Mass., Nov. 14, 2022)
challenges DPH's clandestine and ultra vires installation of
spyware onto their personal mobile devices, violating their
constitutional and common-law rights to privacy and property.

In December 2021, Massachusetts ended its program of widespread
contact tracing, at least in part due to the program's high costs
and limited effectiveness in the face of new COVID-19 variants.

In May 2020, Google and Apple Inc. developed a mobile device API
that serves as a framework to enable public health authorities to
develop their own mobile contact-tracing apps. The Google API is
used to develop contact-tracing apps for the Android operating
system, and the Apple API is used for iOS devices.

The Contact Tracing App is identical to the initial MassNotify app
except that it installs without device owners' permission.

Accordingly, the DPH decided to secretly install the Contact
Tracing App onto over one million Android devices because its
initial version, which required voluntary download, was not being
widely adopted by Massachusetts citizens by June 2021. Reviewers
complain that, without permission, the App downloaded onto their
mobile devices, turning on the Bluetooth -- likewise without
permission -- and hiding itself in "settings" instead of appearing
as an icon alongside all other apps on the device. Even after a
device owner uninstalls the App, the App "keeps reinstalling itself
after removal." A March 31, 2022, reviewer complained that "[t]his
app installed itself secretly and I have uninstalled it multiple
times for it to keep reinstalling itself, says the suit.

Despite being aware of these privacy and consumer-protection
allegations concerning Google's API and Bluetooth scans, DPH
continues to secretly install the Contact Tracing App, which is
based on Google's API and enables Bluetooth scans, onto Android
devices without their owners' consent or awareness, the suit
added.

Massachusetts is a New England state bordered by New Hampshire and
Vermont in the north, the Atlantic Ocean in the east, Rhode Island
and Connecticut in the south, and New York in the west.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas H. Curran, Esq.
          Peter Antonelli, Esq.
          CURRAN ANTONELLI, LLP
          Ten Post Office Square, Suite 800 South
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 207-8670
          Facsimile: (617) 850-9001
          E-mail: tcurran@curranantonelli.com
                  pantonelli@curranantonelli.com

                - and -

          Sheng Li, Esq.
          Margaret A. Little, Esq.
          NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE
          1225 19th St. NW, Suite 450
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 869-5210

MATERION CORP: Faces Lucyk Labor Suit in Ohio Court
---------------------------------------------------
Materion 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 November 2, 2022,
that it is facing a case captioned "Garett Lucyk, et al. v.
Materion Brush Inc., et. al.," Case Number 20CV0234, a wage and
hour purported collective and class action filed in the Northern
District of Ohio against the company and its subsidiary, Materion
Brush Inc. in on October 14, 2020.

A former hourly production employee at the company's Elmore, Ohio
facility, alleges, among other things, that he and other similarly
situated employees nationwide are not paid for all time they spend
donning and doffing personal protective equipment in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law. Plaintiff filed a motion
for conditional certification, which the company opposed. On August
2, 2022, the court conditionally certified a class of employees at
the company's Elmore facility only and rejected certification of a
class across the company's other facilities.

Materion Corporation is an integrated producer of engineered
materials based in Ohio.


MAZDA MOTOR: Heinz Sues Over Defective Motor Vehicle Engines
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN HEINZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC; DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02058-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.,
Nov. 15, 2022) alleges that the Defendants manufacture and sell
defective Mazda year 2021 model vehicles.

According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles suffer from an
unidentified defect within the Class Vehicles' powertrain
components which cause them to consume an excessive amount of
engine oil under normal operation in between regular oil change
intervals (the "Defect"). As a result of the Defect, the Class
Vehicles cannot maintain a proper engine oil level, and the
excessive oil consumption may cause their engines to unexpectedly
fail while in operation. Thus, anyone who drives a Class Vehicle,
along with their passengers and other individuals who share the
road with them, have been exposed to serious risk of accident and
injury, says the suit.

Although the Defendant is and has been aware of the widespread
nature of the Defect in the Class Vehicles, including that the
Defect poses grave safety risks if unrepaired for long periods of
time, Defendant has failed to take adequate steps to notify the
owners of the Class Vehicles regarding the Defect and provide
relief. Owners of the Class Vehicles overwhelmingly do not discover
the Defect until they notice the persistent low engine oil light
issue and bring their Class Vehicles to one of Defendant's
dealerships.

The Defendant has deprived Plaintiff and class members of the
benefit of their bargain. The Plaintiff and class members purchased
their Class Vehicles for the price that they paid under the
reasonable but mistaken belief that the Class Vehicles were safe
for driving. The Plaintiff and class members would not have
purchased the Class Vehicles or would not have paid the price that
they paid, had they been made aware of the Defect prior to their
purchase, the suit added.

MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., doing business as Mazda North
American Operations Inc., retails automobile vehicles. The Company
offers new and used cars, vans, trucks, sport utility vehicles,
parts, and accessories, as well as financing, maintenance, and
repair services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
         Carolin K. Shining, Esq.
         Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
         Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq.
         Jesse S. Chen, Esq.
         WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
         3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (213) 381-9988
         Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
         Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                cshining@wilshirelawfirm.com
                jmann@wilshirelawfirm.com
                jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com
                jchen@wilshirelawfirm.com

MC AND O CONSTRUCTION: Bautista Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Bautista, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MC AND O CONSTRUCTION INC., OWEN OREILLY and EAMONN
MCDONNELL, as individuals, Case No. 1:22-cv-06952 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
15, 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 regularly worked 55 to 63 hours each week from
January 2021 until July 2021, 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 employed by the Defendants as a mason while
performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants.

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

The Plaintiff is 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


MDL 2966: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Classes in Xyrem Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust
Litigation (MDL 2966), Case No. 3:20-md-02966-RS (S.D. Cal.), the
Class Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the
following classes:

   -- Class Plaintiffs (except Ruth Hollman) move, pursuant to
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), for an
      Order certifying the following class (the "Health Benefit
      Plan Payor Class") with respect to their claims under
      Counts 7-11 (for conspiracy in restraint of trade against
      under state law) and (for monopolization under state law)
      of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Complaint"):

      "All entities in the Class States that, for consumption by
      their members, employees, insureds, participants, or
      beneficiaries, and other than for resale, paid and/or
      provided reimbursement for some or all the purchase price
      for Xyrem and/or Xywav during the time from January 17,
      2017, through and until the date of class certification."

      Excluded from the Health Benefit Plan Payor Class are: (1)
      Defendants and their counsel, parents, subsidiaries, and
      affiliates; (2) Express Scripts Specialty Distribution
      Services, Inc. and any of its counsel, parents,
      subsidiaries, and affiliates; and (3) federal and
      state governmental entities. This exclusion does not
      include cities, towns, municipalities, or counties or
      carriers for Federal Employee Health Benefit plans.

      Class Plaintiffs also move, pursuant to Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), for an Order certifying
      the following class (the "Injunctive Relief Class" and
      together with the Health Benefit Plan Payor Class, the
      "Classes") with respect to their claims under Count 17:

      "All individuals and entities in the United States and its
      territories that, for consumption by themselves, their
      families, or their members, employees, insureds,
      participants, or beneficiaries purchased, other than for
      resale, paid for and/or provided reimbursement for some or
      all of the purchase price for Xyrem and/or Xywav during
      the time period from January 17, 2017, through and until
      the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' unlawful
      conduct cease."

      Excluded from the Injunctive Relief Class are (1)
      Defendants and their counsel, officers, directors,
      management, employees, parents, subsidiaries, and
      affiliates, (2) Express Scripts Specialty Distribution
      Services, Inc. and any of its counsel, officers,
      directors, management, employees, parents, subsidiaries,
      and affiliates, (3) federal and state governmental
      entities. This exclusion does not include cities, towns,
      municipalities, counties or carriers for Federal Employee
      Health Benefit plans, (4) any "single flat co-pay"
      consumers whose benefit plan requires a co-payment that
      does not vary based on the drug's status as a brand or
      generic, and (5) all judges assigned to this case and any
      members of their immediate families.

      Class Plaintiffs will also move the Court to appoint them
      as Class representatives and to appoint as class counsel
      under Rule 23(g) the individuals who were previously
      appointed interim class counsel, namely Dena Sharp of
      Girard Sharp LLP and Michael M. Buchman of Motley Rice LLC
      as Co-Lead Class Counsel; and Joseph Saveri of Joseph
      Saveri Law Firm, Inc.; Jessica R. MacAuley of Hagens
      Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Karin E. Garvey of DiCello
      Levitt LLC; Kenneth Wexler of Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP;
      Clark Craddock of the Radice Law Firm; John Macoretta of
      Spector Roseman & Kodroff PC; and Mark Fischer of Rawlings
      & Associates, PLLC as members of the Plaintiffs' Steering
      Committee.

These actions share multiple factual issues arising from
allegations that the Jazz defendants, which manufacture and
distribute Xyrem, a narcolepsy drug, executed an anticompetitive
scheme to impair and delay generic competition in the market for
sodium oxybate oral solution.

The Plaintiffs allege that this scheme culminated in payoffs to
Jazz’s would-be generic competitors that constitute unlawful
market allocation agreements and anticompetitive reverse payments.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, the
possibility of inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubert
motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and
party resources.

The Class Plaintiffs include Plaintiffs A.F. of L. -- A.G.C.
Building Trades Welfare Plan, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association,
The City of Providence, Rhode Island, Government Employees Health
Association, New York State Teamsters Council Health and Hospital
Fund, Ruth Hollman, Self-Insured Schools of California, and UFCW
Local 1500 Welfare Fund.

The Class Plaintiffs' antitrust claims against Jazz , Hikma , and
the other Generic Defendants satisfy Rule 23's requirements and are
well-suited for class certification. The claims arise from a single
anticompetitive scheme directed toward all Xyrem and Xywav end
payors, each of whom made purchases through a single authorized
pharmacy, the lawsuit says.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GxQjViat
no extra charge.[CC]

Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel are:

          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          Scott Grzenczyk, Esq.
          Tom Watts, Esq.
          Jordan Isern, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
                  scottg@girardsharp.com
                  tomw@girardsharp.com
                  jisern@girardsharp.com

                - and -

          Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 577-0050
          E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com


MERIDIAN SECURITY: Barker Files Suit in W.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meridian Security
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Stacie Barker, Darrell
Barker, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Meridian Security Insurance Company, Case No. 5:22-cv-01243-OLG
(W.D. Tex., Nov. 15, 2022).

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

Meridian Security Insurance -- https://www.mymeridianinsurance.com/
-- operates as an insurance company. The Company provides property
and casualty insurance services to individuals and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shaun W. Hodge, Esq.
          HODGE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1301 Market Street
          The Historic Runge House
          Galveston, TX 77550
          Phone: (409) 762-5000
          Fax: (409) 763-2300
          Email: shodge@hodgefirm.com

               - and -

          J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
          MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT, PLC
          341 Cool Springs Blvd., Ste. 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Phone: (615) 354-1144
          Fax: (731) 664-1540
          Email: brandon@msb.law


MHC HERITAGE: Bid to Strike Report Referred to Magistrate Judge
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL NOEL et al., v.
MHC HERITAGE PLANTATION, LLC et al. , Case No. 2:21-cv-14492-DMM
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order
that the Defendant's Motion to strike expert report of Jeffrey S.
Rothbart is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shaniek M.
Maynard for resolution in connection with the previous referral of
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EnJcMMat no extra charge.[CC]

MIGUEL CARDONA:  Settlement in Sweet Suit Wins Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA SWEET, et al., v.
MIGUEL CARDONA, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-03674-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order granting final settlement
approval.

    -- All objections are overruled.

    -- This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice, except in
       that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action
       as set forth in the settlement agreement.

    -- Once the defendants have effectuated all appropriate
       relief, plaintiffs and defendants shall file a notice
       with the Court.

    -- A joint status report regarding the class and
       Department’s progress in carrying out the settlement is
       due January 26, 2023.

In brief, the settlement under consideration here sorts class
members into three groups.

For group one, approximately 200,000 borrowers or 75% of the class
as defined by the Separate from our litigation, President Biden
announced a different plan to cancel up to settlement, the
agreement provides for "full," "automatic" relief, i.e., discharge
of the borrower’s federal loans, cash refunds of amounts paid to
the Department, and credit repair.

This "up-front" relief would go to class members who attended one
of the 151 schools listed in Exhibit C to the settlement (151 of
the 6,000 colleges operating in the United States). The relief
provided for this group will result in the discharge of
approximately six billion dollars of debt in the aggregate.

For group two, the remaining 25% of the class as defined by the
settlement (approximately 64,000 borrowers), the agreement provides
for final written decisions on their borrower-defense applications
within specified periods of time, correlated to how long they have
been waiting for a decision. The Department will make those
decisions according to a streamlined process that provides certain
presumptions in favor of the borrower. Should the Department not
issue a decision within a specified time, the borrower will receive
full, automatic relief like the borrowers in group one.

The Secretary estimates the relief provided for this group will
result in the discharge of a further $1.5 billion in cumulative
student debt.

For group three, those who submitted a borrower-defense application
after execution of the settlement on June 22, 2022, and before
final approval (approximately 179,000 borrowers), i.e., "post-class
applicants" as defined by the settlement, the agreement provides a
streamlined process for their borrower-defense applications. If the
Secretary does not render a decision within three years of final
approval, then the borrower would receive full, automatic relief
like the borrowers in group one. The settlement also has reporting
requirements and some appeal procedures.

Four schools filed motions to intervene to oppose the settlement:
American National University (ANU), The Chicago School of
Professional Psychology, Everglades College, Inc., and Lincoln
Educational Services Corporation. The schools take issue with their
inclusion on Exhibit C, which they label a scarlet letter. Argument
on their motions to intervene were heard during the hearing on
preliminary approval.

The United States Secretary of Education has reached a settlement
with a class of student-loan borrowers whose complaint alleges
that, for years, the Department of Education 20 unlawfully delayed
processing, or perfunctorily denied, hundreds of thousands of
"borrower- defense" applications -- requests by students to
discharge their loans in light of alleged wrongful acts and
omissions of the schools they attended. The settlement leaps over
the borrowers’ request to require administrative proceedings and
provides for the automatic discharge of billions of dollars of
student loans and streamlined claim processing. This settlement is
separate and apart from President Biden’s broader program to
forgive $430
26 billion in student debt. The key question now at final approval
concerns whether the Secretary has the authority to enter into such
a settlement.

A Rule 23(b)(2) class was eventually certified as follows:

   "All people who borrowed a Direct Loan or FFEL loan to pay
   for a program of higher education, who have asserted a
   borrower defense to repayment to the U.S. Department of
   Education, whose borrower defense has not been granted or
   denied on the merits, and who is not a class member in
   Calvillo Manriquez v. DeVos, No. 17-7106 (N.D. Cal.)."

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3gf8pkxat no extra charge.[CC]

MINNESOTA: Court Junks Motion to Certify Class in Larsen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Larsen, et al., v.
State of Minnesota, et al., Case No. 0:21-cv-00568-DWF-DJF (D.
Minn.), the Hon. Judge Donovan W. Frank entered an order that:

   1. The motions to voluntarily dismiss are granted.

   2. The Plaintiffs Christopher Sime, Raymond Semler, Allen
      Pyron, Kevin Nelson, Jeremy Bilder, Anthony Green, Robert
      Smith, and Jeremy Asher are dismissed without prejudice
      from this action.

   3. The motion to file an amended complaint is denied.

   4. The Clerk of Court is directed to redocket the proposed
      amended complaint as the amended complaint. That document
      is now the operative pleading in this matter,
      notwithstanding the denial of the motion to amend.

   5. The motions for injunctive relief are denied without
      prejudice.

   6. The motion to reconsider denial of in forma pauperis
      status is denied.

   7. The motion to certify class is denied.

   8. The motion to appoint class representatives is denied.

   9. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

  10. The motion for appointment of psychological experts is
      denied.

This lawsuit was commenced by nearly four dozen clients of the
Minnesota Sex Offender Program ("MSOP") who, on behalf of
themselves and putatively on behalf of a group of similarly
situated MSOP clients, seek relief from the conditions of their
ongoing civil detention. Very shortly after filing, this action was
stayed pending the adjudication of Karsjens v. Minnesota Department
of Human Services, Case No. 11-CV-3659-DWF/TNL.

Judgment has since been entered in Karsjens, and the stay
previously imposed in this matter has now been lifted. Prior to the
lifting of the stay, each of the plaintiffs were directed to
provide notice of whether they intended to continue prosecuting
this lawsuit. Eleven plaintiffs did not provide the required
notice, and those plaintiffs subsequently were dismissed without
prejudice from this action.

Since that time, another eight plaintiffs -- Christopher Sime,
Raymond Semler, Allen Pyron, Kevin Nelson, Jeremy Bilder,
Anthony Green, Robert Smith, and Jeremy Asherhave requested to be
voluntarily dismissed from this action.

Minnesota is a midwestern U.S. state bordering Canada and Lake
Superior.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3VgGYphat no extra charge.[CC]


MODIVCARE INC: All Metro Continues to Defend NYSOL Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
ModivCare 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 8, 2022, that its subsidiary All
Metro Health Care intends to defend itself from the New York State
Department of Labor ("NYSDOL") class suit.

In 2017, one of our Personal Care segment subsidiaries, All Metro
Home Care Services of New York, Inc. d/b/a All Metro Health Care
("All Metro"”), received a class action lawsuit in state court
claiming that, among other things, it failed to properly pay
live-in caregivers who stay in patients' homes for 24 hours per day
("live-ins").

The Company currently pays live-ins for 13 hours per day as
supported through a written opinion letter from the New York State
Department of Labor ("NYSDOL"). A similar case involving this issue
has been heard by the New York Court of Appeals (New York's highest
court), which on March 26, 2019, issued a ruling reversing earlier
lower courts' decisions that an employer must pay live-ins for 24
hours.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the NYSDOL’s interpretation to
pay live-ins 13 hours instead of 24 hours if certain conditions
were being met. If the class action lawsuit on this matter is
allowed to proceed, and is successful, All Metro may be liable for
back wages and litigated damages going back to November 2011.

All Metro filed its motion to oppose class certification of this
matter and the matter was heard on June 23, 2022.

A ruling should be issued by end-of-year.

All Metro intends to defend itself vigorously with respect to this
matter, believes that it is and has been in compliance in all
material respects with the laws and regulations covering pay for
live-in caregivers, and does not believe in any event that the
ultimate outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect
on the Company's business, liquidity, financial condition or
results of operations.

ModivCare Inc. is a technology-enabled healthcare services company
based in Colorado.

MODIVCARE INC: Continues to Defend Farah Labor Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
ModivCare 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 8, 2022, that the Company intends
to defend itself from the Farah Labor Class suit.

On August 6, 2020, LogistiCare Solutions, LLC, the Company's
subsidiary now known as ModivCare Solutions, LLC ("ModivCare
Solutions"), was served with a putative class action lawsuit filed
against it by Mohamed Farah, the owner of transportation provider
Dalmar Transportation, in the Western District of Missouri, seeking
to represent all non-employee transportation providers contracted
with ModivCare Solutions.

The lawsuit alleges claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, as amended (the "FLSA"), and the Missouri Minimum Wage Act,
and asserts that all transportation providers to ModivCare
Solutions in the putative class should be considered ModivCare
Solutions' employees rather than independent contractors.

On June 6, 2021, the Court conditionally certified as the putative
class all current and former In Network Transportation Providers
who, individually or through their companies, were issued 1099
payments from ModivCare Solutions for providing non-emergency
medical transportation services for ModivCare Solutions for the
previous three years.

Notice of the proposed collective class was issued on October 5,
2021, and potential members of the class had until January 3, 2022
to opt-in.

Plaintiff moved for class certification on August 15, 2022, and
ModivCare Solutions filed an opposition to class certification on
September 6, 2022.

ModivCare Solutions believes it will be able to successfully oppose
class certification of this action after discovery and in any event
intends to defend itself vigorously with respect to this matter,
believes that it is and has been in compliance in all material
respects with the laws and regulations regarding the
characterization of the transportation providers as independent
contractors, and does not believe that the ultimate outcome of this
matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, liquidity, financial condition or results of operations.

ModivCare Inc. is a technology-enabled healthcare services company
based in Colorado.

All Metro Health Care Services Of New York, Inc. is a licensed home
care service agency that provides home care service options to
clients. [BN]



MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Douglass Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MONDELĒZ GLOBAL
LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00875-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class for settlement purposes;

   2. preliminarily approving the settlement;

   3. approving the proposed notice and notice plan; and

   4. setting dates for the submission of objections to the
      proposed settlement agreement and a fairness hearing.

In May 2020, Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's online
stores. The Plaintiff could not access the Defendant's online
stores because the stores were not compatible with screen reader
auxiliary aids, which Plaintiff uses to access digital content
because he is blind.

The Plaintiff eventually filed a class action complaint on June 15,
2022. The Plaintiff's complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief against Defendant, asserting Defendant does not have
adequate corporate policies and practices reasonably calculated to
cause its online store to be fully accessible to blind individuals,
in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA").

After engaging in many months of good faith negotiations, the
parties reached a settlement and executed a proposed settlement
agreement.  The Agreement resolves this action and defines the
settlement class as follows:

   "All Blind or Visually Disabled individuals who use screen
   reader auxiliary aids to navigate digital content and who
   have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from
   attempting to access, or who may access, attempt to access,
   or be deterred from attempting to access from the United
   States."

Mondelez is a manufacturer of processed Cheese.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hW6cuwat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Tucker, Esq.
          Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq.
          Chandler Steiger, Esq.
          Stephanie Moore, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          https://eastendtrialgroup.com/
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Telephone: (412) 877-5220
          E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com

MONEYGRAM INT'L: Continues to Defend Illinois Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moneygram 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 8, 2022, that the
Company intends to defend itself from an Illinois securities class
suit.

On November 14, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against MoneyGram and certain of its executive
officers. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that MoneyGram
made material misrepresentations regarding its compliance with the
stipulated order for permanent injunction and final judgment that
MoneyGram entered into with the FTC in October 2009 and with the
DPA that MoneyGram entered into with the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Department of
Justice in November 2012.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest
and costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes the case is without merit and is vigorously
defending this matter.

MoneyGram is an American cross-border P2P payments and money
transfer company based in the United States with headquarters in
Dallas, Texas. The Individual Defendants are director of the
Company.[BN]

NEW YORK, NY: Scheduling Order Entered in Teagle Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Teagle. et al., v. The
City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07211 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry entered a scheduling order:

   -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class       December 12, 2022
      certification shall be served
      on Defendants by:

   -- The Defendants' opposition shall       January 17, 2023
      be served on Plaintiffs by:

   -- The Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants'   February 14, 2023
      opposition, if any, shall be served
      on Defendants by:

The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment
Discrimination.

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.[CC]


NEW YORK: Court Rules on Related Matters in Betances v. Fischer
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL BETANCES, et al., Plaintiffs v. BRIAN FISCHER, in
his capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Correctional Services (DOCS), and in his individual capacity, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 11-CV-3200 (RWL) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York enters an order addressing motions in
limine, issues for trial, and related matters.

On Nov. 17, 2022, the Court held a pre-trial conference with the
parties addressing motions in limine, issues for trial, and related
matters.

As ordered during the conference (and without exclusion to other
orders made during the conference):

      1. By Nov. 21, 2022, the parties will jointly file a letter
setting forth dates during March, April, and May 2023 when they are
not available for trial. The Court plans to reserve three days for
trial.

      2. By Dec. 15, 2022, the Defendants will file a memorandum of
law addressing the extent to which, if at all, the Plaintiffs'
violations of unconstitutionally imposed PRS implicate a defense of
failure to mitigate damages. The memorandum will also address any
implications for class action status. The Plaintiffs will file
their responding brief by Jan. 10, 2023. The Defendants will file
their reply, if any, by Jan. 24, 2023. The Plaintiffs will file
their sur-reply, if any, by Jan. 31, 2023. Opening briefs will be
no more than 15 pages; reply briefs will be no more than 8 pages.

      3. Trial of the Plaintiff class's "loss-of-liberty" damages
will be by jury, with a unanimous verdict required.

      4. To the extent Defendants have sought to revive their
statute of limitations arguments, the request is denied.

      5. The Plaintiffs' motion in limine to preclude argument and
testimony about the Defendants' liability is granted. The
Defendants' motion to allow such argument and testimony is denied.

      6. The Plaintiffs' motion in limine to preclude argument and
testimony about causation is granted. The Defendants' motion to
allow such argument and testimony is denied.

      7. The Plaintiffs' motion in limine to limit argument and
testimony of the type of damages to which they may recover to
compensatory damages only is granted; the Defendants are precluded
from presenting argument or testimony that the jury may consider
awarding nominal damages or no damages. The Defendants' motion in
limine to allow such argument and testimony is denied. The issue of
which the Plaintiffs may recover which type of damages has been
previously determined by the Court.

      8. The Plaintiffs agree they are not seeking damages for loss
of the right to vote as part of the loss-of-liberty class trial.
Accordingly, argument and testimony about loss of the right to vote
will be excluded from trial.

      10. The Defendants' motion in limine to preclude testimony or
argument about damages for "certain specific periods of time" is
denied with respect to what will be before the jury. The Plaintiffs
agree they are not seeking damages for periods of time from which
they absconded from PRS and therefore were at liberty and that any
individual Defendant (namely, Fischer) does not bear liability for
any period of time prior to the time they became employed by DOCS.
That issue does not at all affect what the issues for the jury will
be at trial.

      11. The Defendants' motion in limine to permit testimony as
to the law governing during different time frames during which
referrals for resentencing could have been made is denied.

      12. The Plaintiffs' motion in limine to preclude argument and
testimony about sentencing procedures and resentencing initiatives
is granted; the Defendants' motion to allow such argument and
testimony is denied.

      13. The Plaintiffs' motion in limine to preclude argument and
testimony about the specifics of the offenses for which they were
initially incarcerated or for which they were reincarcerated while
on PRS is granted; the Defendants' motion in limine to allow such
argument and testimony is denied.

      14. The Defendants' motion in limine to limit the named
Plaintiffs' testimony to their own personal experiences on PRS or
during reincarceration is granted.

      15. All rulings are with respect to only the trial of the
loss-of-liberty class phase of damages.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdd4j3f8 from Leagle.com.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Must File Sur-Reply in Pascal Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN PASCAL; MARIA
MENGONI; LEISA JOHNSON; EBONY JONES; PATRICK MCMORROW; TINISHA
MILLER; ELIZABETH RODRIGUEZ; LEMAR TAYLOR; JUDI MOORE; BARBARA
MORAS; and ROBERT CARNEVALE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-00492-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L.
Staton entered an order granting Nissan North's ex parte
application for leave to file sur-reply in opposition to
plaintiffs' reply to their motion for class certification and
evidentiary objections to the declaration of Todd Walburg.

  -- The Defendant may file the Sur-Reply in Opposition to
     Plaintiffs' Reply to their 8 Motion for Class Certification
     and Declaration of Garrett S. Llewellyn.

  -- The Defendant may file evidentiary objections to the
     Declaration of Todd Walburg in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply
     in Support of their Motion for Class Certification.

Nissan North, doing business as Nissan USA, is the North American
headquarters, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor
Corporation of Japan.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Ves1UHat no extra charge.[CC]

NISSAN NORTH: Xtronic CVT Problems Cause Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that Nissan XTRONIC CVT problems have
caused a class action lawsuit that alleges the continuously
variable transmissions are defective.

The lawsuit alleges the XTRONIC transmissions shake, jerk, have
acceleration and deceleration problems, make noise and suffer
complete failures.

The following vehicles equipped with Nissan XTRONIC CVTs are
allegedly unsafe to drive because the vehicles lag and suffer from
shuddering and juddering.

2019-2022 Nissan Kicks
2016-2022 Nissan Maxima
2017-2022 Nissan Murano
2019-2022 Nissan Rogue
2019-2022 Nissan Rogue Sport
2019-2022 Infiniti QX50

Nissan XTRONIC CVT Lawsuit: The Plaintiffs
Arizona plaintiff Abigail Busler purchased her 2019 Nissan Kicks in
August 2020, but within four months her Nissan vehicle alleged had
problems with power and delayed acceleration.

In January 2022, the plaintiff complained to a Nissan dealer about
the symptoms but the "dealership failed to perform any repairs" and
the Nissan Kicks allegedly still has the same problems.

California plaintiff Susanne Hanes purchased a 2018 Nissan Murano
in May 2020, but after driving about 7,000 miles the plaintiff
noticed the vehicle was jerking, shuddering and hesitating when
accelerating. The plaintiff says she complained to a Nissan dealer,
but "no repairs were performed."

Alabama plaintiff Carl Kirksey purchased a used 2016 Nissan Maxima
in December 2021, but the vehicle began to "suddenly and repeatedly
lose motive power, including on the freeway."

The plaintiff took the Maxima to a Nissan dealer in February 2022
when the vehicle had nearly 49,000 miles on the odometer.

The dealership said the CVT and alternator needed to be replaced,
and the plaintiff asserts he had to pay $637 while the remainder
was covered by the extended warranty.

The plaintiff claims his Nissan Maxima continues to jerk despite
the transmission replacement.

Illinois plaintiff Marueen Love purchased a used 2019 Nissan Rogue
Sport in February 2020, but by December 2021 the vehicle allegedly
suffered from delayed acceleration, lack of power and shaking.

"With approximately 20,000 miles on the odometer, Ms. Love
presented her vehicle to her local Nissan dealership in Chicago,
Illinois, complaining of the above transmission symptoms. The
dealership downplayed her complaints and failed to diagnose any
transmission problems or perform any repairs." -- Nissan CVT
lawsuit

The plaintiff alleges her Nissan Rogue Sport continues to have the
same problems.

Ohio plaintiff Taylor Simms purchased a used 2019 Nissan Rogue in
May 2021, but in March 2022 she took the vehicle to a Nissan dealer
for alleged transmission issues. However, the class action lawsuit
alleges the "dealership failed to diagnose the problem and provided
Mr. Simms no repairs."

New York plaintiff Sean Chambers owns a 2019 Nissan Rogue that was
purchased new in April 2019, but the vehicle experienced the
"sensation of gear slips, exhibiting lack of power and delayed
acceleration."

The plaintiff brought the vehicle to a Nissan dealer when the Rogue
had about 12,500 miles on it. The class action lawsuit alleges the
dealership verified a grinding noise at 5 mph and noise from the
right side of the CVT.

The dealer replaced the CVT but allegedly took three months to do
it. However, the plaintiff claims the Rogue suffers from a lack of
power and delayed acceleration.

Georgia plaintiff Chantel Young purchased a new 2021 Nissan Kicks
and within a few months the vehicle was allegedly jerking and
"exhibiting a skipping sensation when attempting to accelerate."

The Nissan dealer replaced the CVT but the plaintiff claims the
vehicle still runs roughly.

The class action lawsuit asserts Nissan has issued several
technical service bulletins to dealers about the transmissions, but
even replacing the CVT doesn't help because the replacements are
also defective.

The Nissan XTRONIC CVT class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville
Division): Busler, et al., v. Nissan North America, Inc.

The plaintiffs are represented by Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
Grossman PLLC, Capstone Law APC, Berger Montague PC, Pearson, Simon
& Warshaw, LLP, Miller & Shah, LLP, Maddox Cisneros, LLP.

The same lawyers recently reached a settlement agreement with
Nissan regarding other models that allegedly have CVT problems [GN]

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Parties Seek Extension of Briefing Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Romano, et al., v.
Northrop Grumman Corporation et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05760-GRB-ST
(E.D.N.Y.), the parties request that the remaining class
certification briefing schedule be extended, as follows:

            Event                     Existing        Proposed
                                      Deadline        Deadline

-- Plaintiffs serve reply        Nov. 21, 2022    Dec. 15, 2022
    brief to Rule 23 motion,
    rebuttal expert reports,
    oppositions to Defendants'
    Daubert motions, and Daubert
    motions as to Defendants'
    class certification experts:

-- Defendants serve              Mar. 16, 2023    Apr. 12, 2023
    oppositions to Plaintiffs'
    Daubert motions and replies
    supporting own Daubert
    motions

-- Plaintiffs serve replies      May 2, 2023      May 31, 2023
    in support of their
    Daubert motions, and
    file fully briefed Rule
    23 motion and parties'
    Daubert motions

Northrop Grumman is an American multinational aerospace and defense
technology company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tOilEsat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Greg Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, PC
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          E-mail: gregC@elglaw.com;
                 gary@elglaw.com;
                 kmckie@elglaw.com

                - and-

          Lilia Factor, Esq.
          Paul Napoli, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK
          400 Broadhollow Rd.
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: lfactor@napolilaw.com
                  pnapoli@nsprlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Grant J. Esposito, Esq.
          David J. Fioccola, Esq.
          Katie L. Viggiani, Esq.
          Robert J. Baehr
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
          E-mail: gesposito@mofo.com
                  dfioccola@mofo.com;
                  kviggiani@mofo.com;
                  rbaehr@mofo.com

NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH VILLAFAN, a single
man; WOLFGANG OLSON, a single man; and JOSH GRAVES, a married but
separated man, v. NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT, LLC, a Washington limited
liability company; HILT VENTURE CAP INC., a Washington limited
liability company; DONALD FLEMING and JANE DOE FLEMING, residents
of Montana, and the marital community composed thereof; v.
NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT, INC., a Washington corporation; RICHARD FORD
and JANE DOE FORD, residents of Texas, and the marital community
composed thereof; RFJ AUTO PARTNERS NORTHERN HOLDINGS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; JOHN and JANE DOES 1-5 and the marital
communities composed thereof; and RFJ AUTO GROUP, INC., a foreign
corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-01616-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order for extension of deadline
for filing motions related to class certification clerk's action
required as follows:

               Event              Current          New
                                  Deadline         Deadline    

   Deadline for filing        Nov. 17, 2022     Dec. 1, 2022
   motions related to
   class  certification

The parties agree that the current deadline for filing motions
related to class certification should be extended to Thursday,
December 1, 2022.

Northwest Motorsport was founded in 1996. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of used cars.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ENQ5rQat no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE N. BOLIN, JR., PS
          144 Railroad Ave., Suite #308
          Edmonds, WA 98020
          Telephone: (425) 582-8165
          Facsimile: (888) 527-2710
          E-mail: eugenebolin@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul S. Smith, Esq.
          Martin J. Pujolar, Esq.
          FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S.
          901 Fifth Ave., Suite 1400
          Seattle, WA 98164
          Telephone: (206) 689-8500
          Facsimile: (206) 689-8501
          E-mail: mpujolar@foum.law
                  psmith@foum.law

NP HOME: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Barrack Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BARACK and
MICHELLE BARACK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. NP HOME BUYERS, LLC, NICHOLAS ROBLES, and NP
RESIDENTIAL, Case No. 3:22-cv-00890-K (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Ed Kinkeade entered a class certification scheduling order as
follows:

   1. All motions requesting leave to          Jan. 20, 2023
      join parties or to amend pleadings
      shall be filed by:

   2. The Plaintiffs shall file their          July 14, 2023
      Motion for Class Certification by:

   3. Responses to the Motion for Class        Aug. 4, 2023
      Certification are due no later than:

   4. Replies is support of the Motion for     Aug. 18, 2023.
      Class Certification are due no later
      than:

   5. Discovery related to Class               June 14, 2023
      Certification only, may begin
      immediately, but this discovery
      closes:

   6. The parties shall mediate this case      March 17, 2023
      no later than:

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3OuKsCoat no extra charge.[CC]


OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Pauli
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pauli v. Ollie's Bargain
Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Misrolav Rovric entered an uniform pretrial scheduling order
as follows:

   -- Venue Motions are to be filed within 60 days of the date
      of this Order following the procedures set forth in Local
      Rule 7.1 (a)(2) and are to be made returnable before the
      assigned Magistrate Judge.

   -- Jurisdiction motions are to be filed within 60 days of the
      date of this Order following the procedures set forth in
      Local Rule 7.1 (a)(1) and are to be made returnable before
      Judge  D'Agostino.

   -- Any motion to join any person as a to this action shall be
      made on or before January 3, 2023.

   -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be
      made on or before January 3, 2023.

   -- The parties are directed to file a status report on or
      before January 30,2023.

   -- Initial Written Discovery Demands must be served by
      December 9, 2022.

   -- All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or
      before December 29, 2023.

   -- No later than October 2, 2023, plaintiff(s) shall identify
      any expert(s) and, unless waived, shall serve on the other
      parties the expert's written report pursuant to Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).

   -- motion for conditional certification are to be filed on or
      before December 16, 2022.

   -- motion for class certification are to be filed on or
      before May 31, 2023.

   -- Mandatory Mediation shall be completed by April 28, 2023.

Ollie's Bargain is an American chain of discount closeout
retailers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3gfIrNLat no extra charge.[CC]

PACIFIC BELL: Fails to Pay Employees on Timely Basis, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE JONES, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV35974 (Cal. Super., Nov. 14, 2022) sues over Defendants
alleged consistent policy or practice of failing to pay Plaintiff
and/or Aggrieved Employees during their employment on a timely
basis as per Labor Code section 204.

Accordingly, pursuant to Labor Code section 210, Plaintiff and
other Aggrieved Employees are entitled to recover civil penalties
for Defendants' violations of Labor Code section 204. Specifically,
the Plaintiff seeks to recover Private Attorney' General act of
2004 (PAGA) civil penalties through a representative action
permitted by PAGA and the California Supreme Court in, among other
authorities.

On September 9, 2022, the Plaintiff provided written notice
pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.3 online and by certified mail,
with return receipt requested, of Defendants' violation of various,
including the herein-described, provisions of the Labor Code, to
the LWDA, as well as by certified mail, with return receipt
requested to Defendants, and each of them, says the suit.

Pacific Bell is a telephone company that provides telephone service
in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Rex J. Phillips, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrawlaw.com
                  rex@tomorrowlaw.com

PEARLSTONE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Nicholas Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GUY NICHOLAS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class v. PEARLSTONE RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a ULYSSES FOLK HOUSE,
and ONE HANOVER, LLC d/b/a HARRY'S NYC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09697
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including
overtime, due to time shaving, and improper meal credit deductions
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law, as well as liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

In October 2021, Mr. Nicholas was hired by the Defendants to work
as a salad station, oyster station, and desert station employee for
Defendants' Harry's restaurant located at 58 Stone Street, New
York, NY 10004. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants until
August 2, 2022.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Restaurant Harry's and Ulysses share
the same kitchen and personnel. While Mr. Nicholas worked
officially at Harry's, he would also work for Defendants'
Restaurant Ulysses. Throughout his employment, Mr. Nicholas was
scheduled to work five days per week, from Tuesday to Saturdays
from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. eight hours per day. Throughout their
employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff was not compensated for
all hours worked, including overtime, due to Defendants' policy of
time shaving, the suit says.

The Plaintiff was allegedly subject to a 30 minute meal break
deduction every day. However, there was no meal break and the
Plaintiff was required to work through his meal breaks on a daily
basis. As a result, the Plaintiff was time shaved a total two point
five (2.5) hours per week. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment
with the Defendants, the Defendants deducted five dollars per week
from his pay as a meal credit even though he did not take his
meals, the suit claims.

Pearlstone is a domestic limited liability company with a principal
executive office and address for service of process located at 95
Pearl Street, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Darnis Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GERAUD DARNIS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Geraud Darnis, et al.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01171-SRU, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, several former
employees of United Technologies Corporation (UTC) or its
subsidiaries filed a putative class action complaint against the
company, Otis, Carrier, the former members of the UTC Board of
Directors, and the members of the Carrier and Otis Boards of
Directors. The complaint challenged the method by which UTC equity
awards were converted to company, Otis, and Carrier equity awards
following the separation of UTC into three independent,
publicly-traded companies on April 3, 2020. The complaint also
claimed that the Defendants are liable for breach of certain equity
compensation plans and asserted claims under certain provisions of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On September 13, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
which supersedes the initial complaint and continues to assert
claims for breach of the equity compensation plans against the
company, Otis and Carrier, but no longer asserts ERISA claims.
Further, no claim is made in the amended complaint against any
current or former director of any of the three companies. The
Plaintiffs seek money damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief.

On October 13, 2021, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

On September 30, 2022, in response to motions to dismiss filed by
the Defendants, Judge Stefan R. Underhill dismissed the class
action in its entirety with prejudice.  The Court ruled that the
Plaintiffs did not cure the deficiencies in their original
complaint upon repleading. In such circumstances, denying leave to
amend is not an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the problems with
the amended complaint's claims are substantive and they will not be
cured by better pleading.

The appellate case is captioned Geraud Darnis v. Raytheon
Technologies Corporation, Case No. 22-2861, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 28, 2022.
[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants GERAUD DARNIS, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Craig Archer Raabe, Esq.
            IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
            29 South Main Street
            West Hartford, CT 06107
            Telephone: (860) 513-2939

Defendants-Appellees RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, et al., are
represented by:

            Jonathan Freiman, Esq.
            WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
            One Century Tower
            265 Church Street
            New Haven, CT 06510
            Telephone: (203) 498-4584

                   - and -

            William D. Savitt, Esq.
            WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
            51 West 52nd Street
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (212) 403-1000

                   - and -

            Audra J. Soloway, Esq.
            PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
            1285 Avenue of the Americas
            New York, NY 10019

                   - and -

            Evan I. Cohen, Esq.
            FINN DIXON & HERLING LLP
            6 Landmark Square
            Stamford, CT 06901
            Telephone: (203) 325-5000

                   - and -

            Margaret Antinori Dale, Esq.
            PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
            11 Times Square
            New York, NY 10036
            Telephone: (212) 969-3000

                   - and -

            Bart Williams, Esq.
            PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
            2029 Century Park East
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 284-4520

RCI DINING: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Fingerprints' Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleges RCI Dining Services collected
fingerprints from individuals in violation of state privacy law.

Plaintiff Adam Rapp filed a class action lawsuit in the St. Clair
County Circuit Court against RCI Management Services, Inc. and RCI
Dining Services (Harvey), Inc., citing invasion of privacy in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
(BIPA)

According to the lawsuit, RCI Dining Services operates a night club
in Washington Park. During the scope of operating the
establishment, the defendant allegedly collected the fingerprints,
names and addresses of the plaintiff and thousands of other
individuals.

The lawsuit states that BIPA requires that prior to collecting
biometric data including fingerprints, companies must inform
individuals in writing that biometric data will be collected and
stored. It also states that these individuals must be informed in
writing of the specific purpose of why the biometric data is being
collected, how long it will be stored, and companies must receive a
written release from the employee for the collection of biometric
data.

The plaintiff alleges that RCI Dining Services invades the privacy
of those it collects fingerprints from by collecting and storing
their fingerprints without informed consent.

Rapp is seeking damages for himself and everyone in his class
action lawsuit in the amount of $5,000 per intentionally reckless
BIPA violation and $1,000 per negligent BIPA violation, plus court
costs, interest, attorney fees and any other relief the court deems
proper. He is also requesting the court to issue an order to RCI to
cease the collection of biometric data without informed written
consent.

The plaintiff is represented by attorney William H. Beaumont of
Beaumont Costales, LLC in Chicago.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 22LA0884 [GN]

REASONABLE HEALTH: Alexander Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reasonable Health
Coverage LLC. The case is styled as Cathy Alexander, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Reasonable Health
Coverage LLC doing business as: Reasonable Insurance Group, Case
No. 6:22-cv-02119-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla., Nov. 15, 2022).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REBEL CREAMERY: Bid for Alternative Service in Davis Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA DAVIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. REBEL CREAMERY
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-04111-TSH (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Thomas S. Hixon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
alternative service without prejudice.

Angela Davis and Bonnie Bennett bring the putative class action
against Rebel, alleging Rebel falsely marketed its ice cream as
healthier than other ice creams in the marketplace. They filed the
case on July 13, 2022, alleging Rebel engages in a deceptive
marketing campaign to convince consumers that its Products are
nutritious and healthful to consume, and are more healthful than
similar products."

The Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.,
violation of California's False Advertising Law, id. Section 17500,
et seq., violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq., breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust
enrichment.

Rebel is a Utah company with its principal place of business in
Midway, Utah. On July 27, the Plaintiffs' process server attempted
service at the only address listed on the State of Utah Division of
Corporations and Commercial Code's database for REBEL CREAMERY LLC:
125 W MAIN ST #504 MIDWAY, UT 84049. However, the process server
was unable to complete service because the registered address is a
United States Post Office. The Plaintiffs allege Rebel improperly
registered its company in a way to obfuscate that it used a PO Box
rather than a physical location authorized to accept service, and
that this was knowingly done to avoid service because a company
cannot be registered to a PO Box in the State of Utah.

On November 11, service was attempted at 65 White Pine Canyon Road,
Park City, UT 84060, a residential address that the company
recently used on trademark documents with the United States Patent
and Trademark Office. Service was not completed because the Park
City residence is located in a gated community, and the private
security at the gate's entrance would not let the process server
enter the neighborhood.

The Plaintiffs filed the present motion on November 17, stating
that their process server has been unable to successfully
effectuate service upon Rebel at the address of its registered
agent for service of process or at any other known address used by
the company. They believe that the Park City address is the true
address where Rebel may be served through its authorized agent and
owner, Austin Archibald.

The Plaintiffs, therefore, request the Court permits them to
complete service by mailing a true and correct copy of the filed
Summons and Complaint simultaneously by U.S.P.S. first class and
certified return receipt requested mail as follows:

      Rebel Creamery LLC c/o Austin Archibald 65 White Pine Canyon
Road Park City, UT 84060 and Rebel Creamery LLC c/o Austin
Archibald PO Box 504 Midway, Utah, 84049.

The Plaintiffs also seek to continue the case management
conference, currently scheduled for Dec. 15, 2022, and all related
deadlines.

Judge Hixon finds that the Plaintiffs seek to serve Rebel by
alternative means because their attempts at personal service have
been unsuccessful. However, there is no indication they have
attempted service pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
section 415.40, which provides that process may be served on a
corporation outside of the state by sending a copy of the summons
and of the complaint to the person to be served by first-class
mail, postage prepaid, requiring a return receipt. He says service
of a summons by this form of mail is deemed complete on the 10th
day after such mailing. The Ninth Circuit has found that process by
certified mail is proper for out-of-state defendants.

As such, Judge Hixon finds the Plaintiffs' request for alternative
service premature. Instead, he orders the Plaintiffs to complete
service in compliance with section 415.40 at these addresses:

      Rebel Creamery LLC c/o Austin Archibald 65 White Pine Canyon
Road Park City, UT 84060 and Rebel Creamery LLC c/o Austin
Archibald PO Box 504 Midway, Utah, 84049

The Plaintiffs will mail not only a copy of the complaint and
summons, but two copies of a notice and acknowledgement form and a
pre-addressed return envelope with postage paid. They will also
include a copy of this order. As the current service deadline is
November 17, the Court will extend the deadline to Dec. 16, 2022.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Hixon denies without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion for alternative service and extends the deadline
for service to Dec. 16, 2022. If the Plaintiffs are unsuccessful,
any renewed request for alternative service must include citation
to the legal authority that permits the manner of service
requested, including any relevant statute(s), as well as cases that
have allowed the type of service requested, preferably from within
this District.

The case management conference is continued to Jan. 26, 2023, at
10:00 a.m. by Zoom video conference. The webinar link and
instructions are located at
https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/hixson-thomas-s-tsh/. By Jan. 19,
2023, the parties will file a Joint Case Management Statement
containing the information in the Standing Order for All Judges in
the Northern District of California, available at:
http://cand.uscourts.gov/tshorders.The Joint Case Management
Statement form may be obtained at:
http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms.All related deadlines are
adjusted accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4bs6338c from Leagle.com.


RENT THE RUNWAY: Sharma Sues Over False IPO Registration Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RAJAT SHARMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RENT THE RUNWAY, INC., JENNIFER Y. HYMAN,
SCARLETT O'SULLIVAN, TIM BIXBY, JENNIFER FLEISS, SCOTT FRIEND,
MELANIE HARRIS, BETH KAPLAN, DAN NOVA, GWYNETH PALTROW, CARLEY
RONEY, DAN ROSENSWEIG, MIKE ROTH, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC, PIPER SANDLER & CO., WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, JMP
SECURITIES LLC, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., and TELSEY ADVISORY
GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06935 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 14,
2022) is a securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all persons or entities who purchased RTR Class A common stock in
or traceable to the Company's October 2021 initial public offering
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

On October 4, 2021, the Company filed with the SEC a registration
statement on Form S-1 for the IPO, which, after several amendments,
was declared effective on October 26, 2021. On October 27, 2021,
the Company filed with the SEC a prospectus for the IPO on Form
424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration
Statement. The Registration Statement and Prospectus were used to
sell to the investing public 17 million shares of RTR Class A
common stock at $21 per share for $357 million in gross offering
proceeds, which was used in substantial part to pay back debt from
certain of the Company's private equity backers.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make
adequate disclosures required under the rules and regulations
governing the preparation of such documents. The statements were
materially false and misleading when made because they failed to
disclose the facts that existed at the time of the IPO. The failure
of the Registration Statement to disclose that RTR was suffering
from decelerating growth and ballooning costs at the time of the
IPO violated Item 303, because these undisclosed facts were known
to defendants and would (and did) have an unfavorable impact on the
Company's sales, revenues, and income from continuing operations.
This failure also violated Item 105, because these adverse facts
created significant risks that were not disclosed even though they
were some of the most significant factors that made an investment
in RTR stock speculative or risky, says the suit.

Rent the Runway, Inc. is an e-commerce platform that allows users
to rent, subscribe, or buy designer apparel and accessories
headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Vicki Multer Diamond, Esq.
          SAMUEL H. RUDMAN VICKI MULTER DIAMOND
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  vdiamond@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, A 92101  
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 292-5690
          Facsimile: (212) 292-5680
          E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com

RESOURCE ANESTHESIOLOGY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT WEISCOPE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RESOURCE ANESTHESIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF IL, P.C. and
SOMNIA, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-09643 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2022)
alleges that the Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard
personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health
information ("PHI") for more than one hundred thousand individuals
who received services from the Defendants or their affiliates.

Prior to and through July 11, 2022, Somnia obtained from Resource
Anesthesiology Associates of IL, P.C. (RAAI) and other
anesthesiology practices the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class
Members and stored that PII and PHI, unencrypted, in an
Internet-accessible environment on Somnia's network.

On September 22, 2022, RAAI learned from Somnia of suspicious
activity that impacted Somnia's ability to access some of its
systems, during which information about patients of RAAI and other
anesthesiology practices may have been compromised, including date
of birth, driver's license number, financial account information,
health insurance policy number, Medical Record Number, Medicaid or
Medicare ID, and health information such as treatment and diagnosis
info.

Somnia determined that the files and folders removed during the
Data Breach contained the PII and PHI of more than 100,000
individuals who obtained services from the Defendants and their
affiliates, including Plaintiff and Class Members.

On or around October 24, 2022, the Defendants and their affiliates
began notifying various states Attorneys General, and the Plaintiff
and Class Members of the Data Breach.

As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class
Members had no idea their PII and PHI had been compromised, and
that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity
theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial
harm, including the sharing and detrimental use of their
confidential medical information. The risk will remain for their
respective lifetime, the Plaintiff claims.

Resource Anesthesiology offers anesthesia care and other health
care services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Sedgh, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          850 3rd Ave, Suite 402
          Brooklyn, NY 11232
          Telephone: (212) 738-6839
          Facsimile: (813) 222-2439
          E-mail: jsedgh@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX BUSINESS DIVISION
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  rmaxey@ForThePeople.com

RESOURCE ANESTHESIOLOGY: Hernandez Balks at Unprotected Health Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Resource Anesthesiology of
California, A Medical Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01448-ADA-CDB (E.D. Cal., Nov. 9, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, intrusion upon
seclusion/invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory
judgment, and for violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, and the California Consumer Records Act.

This class action arises from the recent data security incident and
data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant RA, which held
in its possession certain personally identifiable information and
protected health information of Plaintiff and other patients of
Defendant RA, the putative Class Members. This Data Breach occurred
on July 11, 2022. The Data Breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for
either treatment or employment or both, says the suit.

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for
years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to
guard against identity theft. Thus, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these
harms on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data
Breach, the suit asserts.

Resource Anesthesiology of California has been providing anesthesia
and pain management services to medical providers in the State of
California since 2007.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danielle Perry, Esq.
          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com
                  gmason@masonllp.com
                  lwhite@masonllp.com

REVOLUTION COOKING: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revolution Cooking,
LLC. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Revolution Cooking, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09754 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16,
2022).

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

Revolution Cooking -- https://revcook.com/ -- is a cooking
equipment company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RING LLC: Must Respond to White Class Suit by January 5, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISON WHITE, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. RING LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; THE HOME DEPOT,
INC. dba HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware Corporation;
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC dba AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-06909-JFW-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter
entered an order granting extension of time to respond to complaint
and time to file motion for class certification as follows:

   1. The Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint is
      extended from November 21, 22 2022 to January 5, 2023; and

   2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file her Motion for Class
      Certification is continued to 90 days after the Court's
      ruling on Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, or in
      the Alternative, to Dismiss the Complaint, or if
      Defendants instead answer, 90 days after the January 5,
      2023 responsive pleading deadline.

Ring LLC is a home security and smart home company owned by
Amazon.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EoZsNpat no extra charge.[CC]

ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS: Brockland ICFA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREA BROCKLAND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS, LLC.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-5332 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sharon Johnson
Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint without prejudice.

Brockland filed a two-count complaint against Roundy's, alleging
defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Deceptive Business
Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2 ("ICFA"), and unjustly enriched
itself to the detriment of the Plaintiff. She filed her First
Amended Class Action Complaint on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals against Roundy's, a supermarket chain
operating throughout Illinois. She alleges that the Defendant
deceptively and unfairly represented to customers that it had the
authority to collect a cash-back fee on debit-card cash-back
transactions at defendant's stores, in violation of the terms of
defendant's standard form agreement with Visa.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant and Visa entered into a
merchant agreement and the terms of this agreement require
compliance with Visa's Core Rules and Visa Product and Service
Rules. She alleges that the Defendant's stores charge sliding-scale
cash-back fees that are unauthorized by law or by the terms of its
agreement with Visa. She asserts that the Visa Rules lack any
provision permitting a cash-back fee on debit-card transactions,
and furthermore, that the Visa Rules specifically prohibit
surcharges of this kind.

The Plaintiff details her effort to obtain cash back at one of the
Defendant's grocery stores in Chicago, Illinois. She purports that
she elected to receive cash back and was presented with a Verifone
terminal screen that asked if she would accept a $0.50 cash-back
fee to complete this transaction. She was provided the option to
select "yes" or "no" to the fee and selected "yes." She claims that
she only selected "yes" based on defendant's representation that it
was authorized to charge this fee. As a result, she maintains she
and the class suffered actual damages by paying this unlawful
surcharge.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's ICFA claims, arguing
they are premised on breach of contract between Roundy's and Visa
and thus do not give rise to a claim under the ICFA. In response to
the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim, it argues that this claim
must be dismissed because the Defendant and the Plaintiff entered
into an express contract and this contract defeats any unjust
enrichment claim. The Court considers each argument in turn.

The Defendant claims Brockland's complaint is based upon breach of
contract and thus is not actionable under the ICFA. The Plaintiff
originally brought a breach of contract claim in state court. It
now claims that the Plaintiff engaged in "artful pleading," where
she eliminated her breach of contract claim to save her ICFA
claim.

Judge Coleman opines that the same can be said for the Defendant,
whose motion to dismiss was based upon the Plaintiff's originally
filed state-court complaint, not her amended complaint. She says,
indeed, the Defendant moved to dismiss a breach of contract claim,
although no such claim is alleged in the Plaintiff's amended
complaint. She finds that the Defendant's motion to dismiss is thus
improperly argued.

Nevertheless, Judge Coleman takes it upon herself to give
appropriate attention to the arguments made in the Defendant's
memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss and its reply brief
to resolve this matter. She concludes that the Plaintiff has failed
to state a claim under the ICFA or an unjust enrichment claim.

Judge Coleman finds that the Plaintiff has not pointed to any
similar legal requirement or guidance that would prohibit the
Defendant from imposing a cash-back fee. As a result, the
Plaintiff's ICFA claims are dismissed without prejudice. And,
because she dismisses the Plaintiff ICFA claim, she must also
dismiss the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim. Finally, even if
the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim could survive the dismissal
of her ICFA claim, because the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim
is based on her "straightforward, everyday sales contract" with
Roundy's, the claim must be dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Coleman grants the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint without prejudice. The
Plaintiff has 60 days to amend the complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 18, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/43y4dnpr from
Leagle.com.


SAM BANKMAN-FRIED: Garrison Sues Over False Representations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Garrison, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, TOM BRADY, GISELE
BUNDCHEN, STEPHEN CURRY, GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS, SHAQUILLE O'NEAL,
UDONIS HASLEM, DAVID ORTIZ, WILLIAM TREVOR LAWRENCE, SHOHEI OHTANI,
NAOMI OSAKA, LAWRENCE GENE DAVID, AND KEVIN O'LEARY, Case No.
1:22-cv-23753-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 15, 2022), is brought against
the Defendants who either controlled, promoted, assisted in, and
actively participated in FTX Trading LTD d/b/a FTX's ("FTX
Trading") and West Realm Shires Services Inc. d/b/a FTX US's ("FTX
US") (collectively, the "FTX Entities"), offer and sale of
unregistered securities in the form of yield-bearing accounts
("YBAs") to residents of the United States, seeking to recover
damages, declaratory and/or injunctive relief stemming from the
offer and sale of FTX Trading's and FTX US's yield-bearing
cryptocurrency accounts.

The Deceptive and failed FTX Platform was based upon false
representations and deceptive conduct. Although many incriminating
FTX emails and texts have already been destroyed, we located them
and they evidence how FTX's fraudulent scheme was designed to take
advantage of unsophisticated investors from across the country, who
utilize mobile apps to make their investments. As a result,
American consumers collectively sustained over $11 billion dollars
in damages.

FTX organized and emanated its fraudulent plan from its worldwide
headquarters located here in Miami, Florida. Miami became the "hot
spot" for crypto companies, hosting the most investments in crypto
startups as well as the annual Bitcoin Miami 2022 Global Forum.
Several crypto companies, including crypto exchange Blockchain.com,
Ripple and FTX.US, moved their headquarters to Miami. Others,
including fellow exchange eToro, expanded their U.S. presence with
offices in Miami. FTX was already very familiar with Miami, signing
a deal worth more than $135 million dollars for the naming rights
of the waterfront arena, where 3-time NBA Champions the Miami Heat
play.

The Plaintiff purchased an unregistered security from FTX in the
form of a YBA and funded the account with a sufficient amount of
crypto assets to earn interest on his holdings. The Plaintiff did
so after being exposed to some or all of Defendants'
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Deceptive FTX
Platform, and executed trades on the Deceptive FTX Platform in
reliance on those misrepresentations and omissions. As a result,
Plaintiff Garrison has sustained damages for which Defendants are
liable, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of Oklahoma.

Sam Bankman-Fried, founder and former CEO of FTX and former
billionaire, is a citizen and resident of the Bahamas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 740-1423
          Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                 joseph@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          David Boies, Esq.
          Alex Boies, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Phone: (914) 749–8200
          Email: dboies@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Stephen Neal Zack, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2800
          Miami, FL 33131
          Office: 305-539-8400
          Email: szack@bsfllp.com
                 uungaro@bsfllp.com


SERVICE CORPORATION: Faces Class Action Over Cremation Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Sunnucks at thegabber.com reports that Gulfport attorney Karen
Keaton has been getting calls about notices received by some
Gulfport and St. Petersburg residents regarding the settlement of a
class action lawsuit (and potential damages) regarding funeral
services.

"Everybody is so scared to respond or do anything because there is
so much scamming," said Keaton, managing partner of Gulf Beaches
Law P.A. in Gulfport.

Keaton said the lawsuit is legitimate and recipients should take a
look at the notices and see if they might be impacted.

The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Fort Lauderdale
in 2020 against Service Corporation International, the
Houston-based owner of funeral homes and funeral services providers
across the U.S. That includes the Neptune Society, a cremation
services providers with a significant Florida footprint.

Neptune's parent company was also named in the suit.

The civil complaint alleged the funeral companies were not keeping
enough of pre-deposited customers' money in special funds that make
sure there is enough money for prepaid funerals.

Keaton said in Florida companies that offer prepaid cremation
services have to keep 70% of those customer payments and deposits
in a set-aside fund. The suit also challenged refund policies
related to prepaid services.

The Florida lawsuit claimed SCI and its various affiliates were not
doing that and the class action includes as many as 87,000 Florida
customers, according to court records.

In September, a $209 million settlement was announced.

Keaton has also seen other suits brought against SCI and other
funeral providers in the other states.

"There have been quite a number of them," said the local attorney,
who specializes tax, elder, and estate-related law.

In 2019, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the
district attorneys for the city and county of San Francisco,
Alameda County, and Marin County filed a similar lawsuit against
the Neptune Society.

In a statement, SCI acknowledged the Florida settlement but also
stressed it contests assertions of any wrongdoing.

"While we strongly maintain there was no wrongdoing on Neptune's
behalf, in an effort to move forward and continue our full focus on
serving our families, we agreed to settle the remaining disputes,"
company said in a statement to The Gabber.

"As part of the settlement, Neptune is offering this class of
customers the option to cancel their contracts for a full refund
for a specified time, if they return all the products and benefits
purchased," the statement continued. "Based, in part, on our
customer surveys and because we don't believe any of our customers
were deceived, we are confident that our customers value our
products and services and do not believe there will be a material
number of cancellations.  We stand behind our products and services
and are honored by the continued loyalty our customers have shown
us."

The company also said it has not had any regulatory or licensing
issues regarding its business and sales practices in Florida.

"The Florida Board of Funeral and Cemetery Services has never once
challenged the legality or impropriety of the business operations
of Neptune or National Cremation Society in the manner alleged in
the litigation," SCI representatives wrote in the statement.

Keaton also wrote about the settlement in a legal newsletter she
provides to clients and others.

"If you purchased pre-need services through any of the companies
named as defendants in the lawsuit, you are already a member of the
class of plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and you should have already
received a letter from the United States District Court about the
settlement and your rights in the lawsuit," Keaton said.

She said customers can ask for a refund or they can also get a free
online obituary as part of the settlement.

"It would definitely not be a good idea to exclude yourself from
the lawsuit," she said.

The Gulfport attorney also noted that refunds might not get paid
out until other portions of the lawsuit are completed and that
plaintiffs attorneys in the civil case are getting $15.5 million
[GN]

SINGULARITY FUTURE: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Singularity Future Technology Ltd. f/k/a Sino-Global Shipping
America, Ltd. (NASDAQ: SGLY, SINO) resulting from allegations that
Singularity may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Singularity securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9855 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.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On November 16, 2022, before market hours, the
Company disclosed that, "The Company has received subpoenas from
the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
New York and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company is complying with these subpoenas and fully cooperating
with these governmental entities. Additionally, the special
Committee of the Company's Board of Directors is continuing to
investigate the claims raised by Hindenburg Research on May 5, 2022
and other related matters."

On this news, Singularity's stock prices fell 18% to close at $2.09
per share on November 16, 2022 on unusually high trading volume.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. 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
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

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

SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Electrical Workers Pension Fund Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended October 2, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Electrical Workers
Pension Fund Suit.

In February 2020, two putative securities class action complaints
were filed against Holdings and certain of its former executive
officers (collectively, the “defendants”) in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On March 2, 2020, the two cases were consolidated in an action
captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. v. Six
Flags Entertainment Corp., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-P (N.D.
Tex.) (the "Electrical Workers litigation"), and an amended
complaint was filed on March 20, 2020.

On May 8, 2020, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. were
appointed as lead plaintiffs, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LLP was appointed as lead counsel, and McKool Smith PC was
appointed as liaison counsel.

On July 2, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and growth
prospects, specifically with respect to the development of its Six
Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its former
partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd., in violation of the
federal securities laws. The consolidated complaint seeks
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class
of purchasers of Holdings’ publicly traded common stock during
the period between April 24, 2018 and February 19, 2020.

On August 3, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

On March 3, 2021, the district court granted defendants' motion,
dismissing the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend or set aside judgment and for
leave to file an amended complaint on March 31, 2021, which the
district court denied on July 26, 2021. Plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to file a supplemental brief on June 17, 2021, which the
district court denied on June 18, 2021.

On August 25, 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the district court's
decisions granting defendants' motion to dismiss, denying
plaintiffs' motion to amend or set aside judgment, and denying
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental brief.
Plaintiffs' appeal is captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension &
Ret. Sys. v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., et al., No. 21-10865 (5th Cir.).


The appeal is fully briefed and oral argument was held on March 7,
2022.

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
intend to defend this litigation vigorously.

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in  geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SPARROW HEALTH: Jones Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA A. JONES, individually, and as Representative of a Class of
Participants and Beneficiaries of the Sparrow Health System
Associate Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiff v. SPARROW HEALTH
SYSTEM and BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SPARROW HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01046 (W.D. Mich., Nov. 9, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

The Defendants, Sparrow Health Systems and the Board of Directors
of Sparrow Health Systems, are ERISA fiduciaries as they exercise
discretionary authority or discretionary control over the 401(k)
defined contribution pension plan, known as Sparrow Health System
Associate Retirement Savings Plan, that it sponsors and provides to
its employees. During the putative Class Period, Defendants, as
fiduciaries of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA,
breached the duty of prudence they owed to the Plan by requiring
the Plan to "pay excessive recordkeeping fees," and by failing to
timely remove their high-cost record-keeper, Transamerica
Retirement Solutions, says the suit.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duty of prudence by causing the Plan participants, including
Plaintiff, to pay excessive fees for recordkeeping and
administration services. The Defendants unreasonably failed to
leverage the size of the Plan to pay reasonable fees for Plan RKA
fees services. These breaches of fiduciary duty caused Plaintiff
and Class Members millions of dollars of harm in the form of lower
retirement account balances than they otherwise should have had in
the absence of these unreasonable Plan fees and expenses, the suit
asserts.

Sparrow Health System is a community-owned, community-governed
health system in the Lansing, Michigan area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 Executive Dr., Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com

               - and -

          Troy W. Haney, Esq.
          HANEY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          330 E. Fulton
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 235-2300
          Facsimile: (616) 459-0137
          E-mail: thaney@troyhaneylaw.com

UNILEVER UNITED: Dry Shampoo Products Contain Benzene, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE SCHRIVER, CAROLINA GONZALEZ, ACHOREA TISDALE, and TRACY
ALLISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-23706
(S.D. Fla., Nov. 11, 2022) is a class action lawsuit by Plaintiffs,
and others similarly situated, who purchased for normal household
use Defendant's dry shampoo products that are defective because
they contain benzene, a known human carcinogen.

The Defendant distributes, markets, and sells to consumers across
the United States, both in retail establishments and online,
including in Florida, certain dry shampoo products under its
various brands, including Suave(TM), TIGI(TM), TRESemme(TM),
Dove(TM), Nexxus(TM), and Living Proof(TM).

The presence of benzene in the Products renders them adulterated,
misbranded, and illegal to sell under federal and state law, the
Plaintiffs claim.

Instead of disclosing this fact to consumers, the Defendant
allegedly represented that its Products are safe and effective for
their intended use, touting its "strict quality controls" to "limit
the presence of benzene" in its products. Nevertheless, Unilever
has produced, marketed, labeled, distributed, and sold millions of
dry shampoo Products that contained, or had a material risk of
containing, benzene.

In October 2022, Unilever announced that "select lot codes of dry
shampoo aerosol products produced prior to October 2021 from
Dove(TM), Nexxus(TM), Suave(TM), TIGI(TM) (Rockaholic and Bed
Head), and TRESemme(TM)" were being recalled "due to potentially
elevated levels of benzene." Unilever instructed consumers to "stop
using the affected aerosol dry shampoo products." As a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's fraudulent, unfair, and unlawful
practices, the plaintiffs suffered damages by purchasing the
Products because they received a product that was essentially or
entirely worthless because it contains, or has a material risk of
containing, a carcinogenic compound, benzene, and they would not
have purchased or would have paid less for the Products had they
known this fact, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class suffered economic damages due
to Defendant's misconduct and seek injunctive relief and
restitution for the full purchase price of the Products.

Unilever offers laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances,
and body washes, as well as provides ice creams, oils, mayonnaise,
spreads, sauces, and tea.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com
                  ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com

UNISYS CORP: Faces Strougo Class Suit Over 48% Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT STROUGO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. UNISYS CORPORATION, PETER A. ALTABEF, and DEBRA
WINKLER MCCANN, Case No. 2:22-cv-04529 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 11, 2022) is
a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Unisys securities between August 3, 2022 and
November 7, 2022, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 3, 2022, in a press release announcing the Company's Q2
2022 financial results, the Company provided its 2022 financial
guidance, stating, "[r]evenue growth is now expected to be in the
range of (1.0)% to 1.0% YoY or in the range of 2.5 to 4.5% in
constant currency. The company now anticipates that non-GAAP
operating profit margin will be between 7.5 to 9.0% and adjusted
EBITDA margin in the range of 16.0 to 17.5%." Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: the Company's 2022 financial guidance was
significantly overstated.

In addition to the foregoing, material weaknesses existed in the
Company's internal control over financial reporting, the lawsuit
says.

On November 7, 2022, post-market, Unisys issued a press release
disclosing that the Company was lowering its previously stated 2022
financial guidance by a significant margin and that it would be
"unable to file, without unreasonable effort and expense and within
the prescribed time period, its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2022."

On this news, Unisys's stock price fell $4.33 per share, or 48%, to
close at $7.89 per share on November 8, 2022.

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

Unisys is an American multinational information technology services
and consulting company headquartered in Blue Bell,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          100 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

                - and –

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

UNITED FURNITURE: Ex-Employee Files Suit Over WARN Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clarissa Hawes at freightwaves.com reports that a former United
Furniture Industries employee claims the furniture manufacturer,
headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi, violated federal law by
failing to give 60 days' notice of its abrupt shutdown to nearly
2,700 employees and truck drivers, who found themselves without
jobs two days before Thanksgiving.

Former UFI employees, operating under the Lane Furniture brand
name, were blindsided after receiving either an email or text
message instructing them not to report to work that day because
their jobs were being immediately terminated "due to unforeseen
business circumstances."

As of publication, Todd Evans, CEO of UFI, failed to respond to
FreightWaves' requests seeking comment about what precipitated the
mass firing.

Toria Neal, a resident of Lee County, Mississippi, who worked for
UFI for more than eight years, alleges in her proposed class-action
complaint that the company violated the federal Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and did not provide at least
60 days' written notice of a pending closure.

In the suit filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi, Neal claims she and potentially
thousands of other United employees received an email and/or text
message "that it was terminating all of its employees effective
immediately" just minutes before midnight on Monday.

The message from UFI stated that the "terminations were expected to
be permanent and that all benefits would be terminated without
provision of COBRA."

Langston & Lott, based in Booneville, Mississippi, filed the first
class action against United Furniture Industries, Inc., alleging it
violated the WARN Act when terminating all 2,700 of its employees.

"Under the WARN Act, the employees of United Furniture were
entitled to either a 60-day notice or 60 days of severance pay --
neither of those were provided," Jack Simpson, attorney for
Langston & Lott, told FreightWaves. "If appointed class counsel, we
look forward to vigorously investigating the actions of United
Furniture and seeking as much compensation the terminated employees
are legally entitled to."

                    Thousands fired by Email, Text

"At the instruction of the board of directors of United Furniture
Industries Inc. and all subsidiaries, we regret to inform you that
due to unforeseen business circumstances, the company has been
forced to make the difficult decision to terminate the employment
of all its employees, effective immediately, on Nov. 21, 2022,"
according to the statement to employees obtained by FreightWaves.

One former employee said generations of her family had worked for
Lane Furniture before United Furniture Industries bought the
furniture manufacturer from Heritage Home Group in 2017.

She said nothing prepared her and other family members who worked
for the company that they would be fired via email or would no
longer have health insurance.

"We would go over to our friends' houses and say, ‘Hey, that
chair or that piece of furniture was made at our plant,'" the
former employee, who didn't want to be named for fear of
retaliation, told FreightWaves. "We really took pride in our work
-- and this is how we are treated."

Some employees questioned the timing of UFI's mass firing just
before Thanksgiving.

However, over-the-road truck drivers for furniture delivery
division UFI Transportation who are currently making deliveries
"will be paid for the balance,"  the company stated in the letter
to workers.

According to the UFI statement, it directs truckers with loads to
"immediately return equipment, inventory and delivery documents for
those deliveries that have been completed to one of the following
locations: Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Verona, Mississippi; or
Victorville, California."

According to the Federal Motor Safety Administration's SAFER
website, UFI has 40 power units and 42 drivers.

In July, Pitchbook listed that the company had nearly 3,000
employees working in its 18 plants and distribution centers in
North Carolina, Mississippi and California, as well as in Vietnam.

Another former employee said she was aware the company was
experiencing some difficulties but had no clue UFI would fire its
entire workforce.

In late July, the furniture manufacturer closed its plants in
Winston-Salem and High Point, North Carolina, resulting in more
than 270 workers losing their jobs, according to WARN Act notices
filed at the time with the North Carolina Department of Commerce.

Another 220 jobs were eliminated in late July at the company's
plant in Amory, Mississippi. "The new leadership had been working
extremely hard to put new processes in place," the former employee
told FreightWaves. "There was too much effort being put in for
anyone to really know they would close overnight."

While there was no communication from UFI executives as to what led
to its abrupt closure, former employees did receive an update
message late Tuesday about retrieving their belongings.

"As soon as the property manager can provide a safe and orderly
process for former employees to come and gather their belongings,
they will do so," UFI/Lane Corporate Communications said in an
email, which was obtained by FreightWaves. "We are not certain of
the timeframe for this but will communicate proactively."

Retrieving their belongings is the last thing on former workers'
minds, one former employee said.

"It is not fair to the laborers who seriously worked so hard to be
blindsided like this," the employee told FreightWaves. "It is not
fair to the mom who just had a baby to wonder if she even has
health insurance to cover it. It is not fair to the cancer patient
in the midst of chemo about how to pay for her treatments." [GN]

UNITED STATES: Court Affirmed Summary Judgment in Bump Stocks Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo at madisonrecord.com reports that
circuit judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit affirmed district judge Staci Yandle's summary judgment
award in favor of government defendants in a class action over bump
stock devices.

Circuit judges Raymond Chen, Tiffany Cunningham and Leonard Stark
filed the decision on Oct. 31.

Wood River attorney Thomas Maag represented plaintiff John Doe in
the appeal.

Washington D.C. attorney Bradley Hinshelwood argued on behalf of
defendants President Joe Biden Jr., Attorney General Merrick
Garland and Marvin Richardson, director of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois in response to the Department of
Justice's Final Rule adopted in December 2018,  retroactively
redefining bump-fire stocks as machine guns under the National
Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968. Until the new
rule was published, the ATF had classified certain bump-stocks as
firearm "parts."

The appellate decision states that bump stocks "allow a
semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single
pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the
semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger
resets and continues firing without additional physical
manipulation of the trigger by the shooter."

Prior to the Final Rule, some bump stocks were not classified as
machine guns and could be sold without serial numbers, background
checks and the need to comply with other federal regulations
applicable to firearms. Those regulations were amended following a
mass shooting on Oct. 1, 2017, at a country music festival in Las
Vegas. A gunman fired more than 1,000 rounds from his room on the
32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, killing 58 and
injuring approximately 500 while using a bump stock device.

Maag wrote in Doe's suit that the DOJ officially announced that
anyone who possesses the devices must either destroy them or
surrender them to the ATF without compensation within a 90-day
period, which is considered ATF's Final Rule.

Doe's suit alleges the ATF violated the Administrative Procedure
Act by not declaring an amnesty-and-registration period for devices
that were previously excluded.

The suit states that Doe seeks to lawfully register the devices in
the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. If
registration is legally impossible, then Doe seeks "just
compensation under the Fifth Amendment, for a total regulatory
and/or actual taking."

Maag asks the court to find that an amnesty registration period
would provide an immunity for registered firearms. He also asks the
court to find that "defendants have abused their discretion and
acted arbitrarily and capriciously."

Yandle granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all
counts, finding that an amnesty period would violate the
prohibition on machine guns. She rejected the plaintiff's Commerce
Clause challenge and direct tax argument.

Yandle also concluded that Doe has no fundamental right to possess
a machine gun and there is "nothing irrational about Congress
differentiating between machinegun possession by law enforcement
and possession by civilians."

She further held that Doe's takings claim fails because
"classification and seizure of contraband is one of the most basic
exercises of the police power - it does not implicate the Takings
Clause."

Doe filed an appeal.

The appellate court affirmed Yandle's findings [GN]

VOYAGER DIGITAL: Roberts Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAUN ROBERTS and KEN SHEPPARD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STEPHEN EHRLICH, GERARD
HANSHE, DAVID BROSGOL, JANICE BARRILLEAUX, PHILIP EYTAN, JARRETT
LILIEN, and BRIAN BROOKS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09590
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2022) seeks to recover damages and to obtain
other relief that Plaintiffs have sustained due to Defendants'
unregistered and unqualified offers and sales of securities in
violation of the Securities Act, the New Jersey Uniform Securities
Law, and the California Corporations Code.

This is a class action on behalf the Plaintiffs and all investors
who purchased unregistered securities in the form of: (1)
cryptocurrency interest-earning accounts referred to as Voyager's
"Earn Program;" and (2) Voyager Tokens issued and sold by
Defendants and Voyager. VGX purchasers, including Plaintiffs,
provided money consideration (in the form of fiat, including U.S.
dollars, or other cryptocurrencies) in exchange for VGX.

According to the complaint, the Defendants did not register their
Earn Accounts or VGX with the SEC or any state securities
regulators, and many of the representations Defendants made
regarding these investment products were designed to drive demand
from, and allowing Defendants to obtain greater returns. This lack
of a protective scheme or regulatory oversight subjected Voyager
Earn Account investors to significant additional risks not borne by
investors who maintain assets with most SIPC-member broker-dealers,
or with banks, savings associations, or credit unions, says the
suit.

The Executive Defendants and the Director Defendants are the
officers, directors, or otherwise controlled Voyager Digital
Holdings Inc. and its affiliates Voyager Digital Ltd. and Voyager
Digital, LLC.

Voyager Digital is a financial services company that generates
revenue through cryptocurrency trading, lending, borrowing, and the
sale of its unregistered Earn Program and VGX securities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sean T. Masson, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: smasson@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101  
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com   
   
               - and -

          James Q. Taylor-Copeland, Esq.
          TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-4944
          Facsimile: (619) 566-4341

WASHINGTON FEDERAL: $495K Class Deal in Hartnett Suit Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD C. HARTNETT and JULIE A. HARTNETT, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
WASHINGTON FEDERAL BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00888 RSM
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington enters Final Approval Order
and Judgment.

On June 23, 2022, the Court entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the Settlement between the Parties, as memorialized in
Exhibit A to the Kaliel Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement.

Pursuant to the notice requirements set forth in the Settlement and
Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Class was apprised of
the nature and pendency of the action, the terms of the Settlement,
and their rights to request exclusion, object, and/or appear at the
Final Approval Hearing;

The Class Counsel on Aug. 8, 2022, previously filed their Motion
for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses and
accompanying declarations from the counsel of record in the action
setting forth their time and expenses and related exhibits. On Oct.
21, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Final Approval of
the Class Action Settlement and accompanying Joint Declaration of
Jeffrey Kaliel and Taras Kick, along with supporting exhibits.

On Nov. 18, 2022, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing to
determine, inter alia: (1) whether the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; and (2) whether judgment should be
entered dismissing all claims in the Complaint with prejudic.

Having reviewed all of the submissions presented with respect to
the proposed Settlement, having determined that the Settlement is
fair, adequate, and reasonable, having considered the application
made by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses and
a Service Award, and having reviewed the materials in support
thereof, Judge Martinez grants the Plaintiffs' Final Approval
Motion and the Class Counsel's Fee Application.

He grants final approval of the Settlement, including, but not
limited to, the releases in the Settlement and the plans for
distribution of the Settlement relief. The Parties will effectuate
the Settlement in accordance with its terms. No Settlement Class
Members have timely and validly elected to opt-out of the
Settlement and Settlement Class.

For purposes of the Settlement and the Final Approval Order and
Judgment, Judge Martinez finally certifies for settlement purposes
only the following Settlement Class: "Customers of Defendant who
were charged Retry NSF/Overdraft Fees during the Class Period, and
either (1) ceased being a customer of Defendant on or before Aug.
31, 2021, or (2) affirmatively opted out of contractual arbitration
with Defendant before Jan. 11, 2022.

The Class Period will mean: For personal account customers, the
time period from Nov. 15, 2015, until Aug. 31, 2021; for business
account customers, the time period between July 1, 2020, and Aug.
31, 2021.

Judge Martinez grants Final Approval to the appointment of (i) the
Plaintiffs as the Settlement Class Representatives; and (ii) The
Kick Law Firm, APC, and KalielGold PLLC as the Class Counsel.

The Settlement Administrator's fees will be paid separately by the
Defendant as provided in the Settlement.

The $495,000 Settlement Fund is to be distributed as follows:
$169,112.95 to the Class Counsel in attorneys' fees and costs,
$5,000 to each Named Plaintiff ($10,000 total), and the remaining
$315,887.05 to the Settlement Class.

The Parties to the Settlement will carry out their respective
obligations thereunder.

Within the time period set forth in the Settlement, the relief
provided for in the Settlement will be made available to the
Settlement Class Members, pursuant to the terms and conditions of
the Settlement.

As of the Effective Date, the Named Plaintiffs and the Settlement
Class, will automatically be deemed to have fully, completely,
finally, irrevocably, and forever released and discharged Defendant
Releasee from the Released Claims, as specified in the Settlement
Agreement.

Judge Martinez dismisses the action and Complaint and all claims
therein on the merits and with prejudice, without fees or costs to
any party, except as provided in the Final Approval Order and
Judgment.

Without affecting the finality of the Final Approval Order and
Judgment, the Court will retain jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the Parties, with respect to the interpretation and
implementation of the Settlement for all purposes.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 18, 2022 Final Approval Order
& Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/ywrp28k6 from
Leagle.com.


WELCH FOODS: Faces Sinatro Suit Over Mislabeled Fruit Snacks
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SINATRO and SHANE WINKELBAUER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELCH FOODS INC., A
COOPERATIVE and PROMOTION IN MOTION, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-07028 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 9, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation,
breach of warranty, unjust enrichment/restitution, and for
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the False
Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

This class action lawsuit arises from an alleged abuse of trust.
Specifically, Welch's false labeling of its popular fruit snacks,
which it deems "America's favorite fruit snacks," as containing "No
Preservatives," even though they contain two preservatives --
citric and lactic acid. Welch's knowingly makes this false label
claim: it employs teams of food scientists, and the scientific
community universally recognizes citric and lactic acid as
preservatives, says the suit.

Through this false and deceptive advertising, the Defendants have
misled Plaintiffs and other reasonable consumers into buying the
Products at stores across California and the United States based on
Defendants' materially false claim. The Plaintiffs and the Class
have suffered injury in fact caused by the false, fraudulent,
unfair, deceptive, unlawful, and misleading practices set forth
herein, and seek injunctive relief, as well as, inter alia,
compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, and
attorneys' fees, the suit asserts.

Welch Foods Inc., commonly known as Welch's, is an American
company, headquartered in Concord, Massachusetts. It has been owned
by the National Grape Cooperative Association, a co-op of grape
growers, since 1956.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050  
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com

WHEATLEY, ON: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Negligence
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a group of residents and businesses
have filed a proposed class action lawsuit over an explosion in a
small Ontario town, alleging negligence by the municipality and a
company hired to find the source of a gas leak that led to the
blast.

A statement of claim, which seeks $100 million in damages, was
filed by a law firm representing six residents and businesses in
Wheatley, Ont., against the Corporation of the Municipality of
Chatham-Kent and HSE Integrated Ltd.

Twenty people required medical attention and a building was
levelled after the blast that took place in August 2021.

The statement of claim alleges the blast "was caused by the
negligence" of the defendants after hydrogen sulfide leaked to a
building from one or more of three wells in the area before
igniting.

A lawyer for Chatham-Kent confirmed that the municipality was
served with the class action lawsuit, but did not comment on the
allegations. HSE Integrated Ltd did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The proposed lawsuit need to be certified by a judge to proceed,
and the allegations haven't been argued or proven in court.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 23,
2022. [GN]

WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Love Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARKEIA LOVE; and RASHAD LEE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-01098-KGB (E.D. Ark., Nov. 15,
2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff.

WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC. (WFS) offers aircraft ground
support services. The Company provides services such as cargo
handling, global cargo logistics, cargo facilities management,
training and safety, cargo documentation and handling, aircraft
capacity management, security processing, and live animal
management. WFS serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stewart Whalwey, Esq.
          1 Riverfront Pl.-Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Telephone: (501) 891-6000
          Email: stewart@wh.law

XTO ENERGY: Fails to Pay Interest on Late Payments, Hystad Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
HYSTAD CEYNAR MINERALS, LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of
similarly situated persons v. XTO ENERGY, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-00196-DLH-CRH (D.N.D., Nov. 14, 2022) seeks to recover
damages and to obtain declaratory relief on behalf of itself and a
defined Class of all similarly situated mineral owners who have
received late payments from XTO on oil or gas produced from the
North Dakota wells and marketed by XTO, which have not included the
eighteen percent per annum interest required under North Dakota
Century Code.

At all times since November 8, 2016, Hystad has owned a mineral
interest in its share of the proceeds received by XTO on its sale
of the oil, gas, or related hydrocarbons produced and marketed by
XTO from certain North Dakota wells which are subject to Hystad's
mineral interests, and Hystad has received monthly royalty payments
from XTO on Hystad's share of the oil, gas, or related hydrocarbons
produced and marketed from such wells by XTO, the suit says.

Since November 8, 2016, XTO has made hundreds of late royalty
payments to Hystad without making the statutorily required eighteen
percent per annum interest on any such late payments, the suit
further claims.

XTO is involved with the production, processing, transportation,
and development of oil and natural gas resources.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George A. Barton, Esq.
          Seth K. Jones, Esq.
          Stacy A. Burrows, Esq.
          BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC
          5201 Johnson Drive, Ste. 110
          Mission, KS 66205
          Telephone: (913) 563-6250
          E-mail: George@bartonburrows.com
                  Seth@bartonburrows.com
                  Stacy@bartonburrows.com

                - and -

          Joshua A. Swanson, Esq.
          Robert B. Stock, Esq.
          VOGEL LAW FIRM
          218 NP Avenue
          Fargo, ND 58102
          Telephone: (701) 237-6983
          E-mail: jswanson@vogellaw.com
                  rstock@vogellaw.co


                            *********

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 ***