---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, December 2, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 235

                            Headlines

4PATRIOTS LLC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
7 A.M. ENFANT: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
A2 RAILLA: Correa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Continues to Defend Faille Shareholder Class Suit
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Continues to Defend Hessler Shareholder Suit

ADIDAS AMERICA: Licea Suit Removed to C.D. California
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Toole Class Suit Dismissed
AG ARCADIA: Anthony Sues Over Failure to Provide Minimum Wages
AIR CANADA: Halifax Plane Crash Recording Can Be Disclosed in Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: Oil Dilution Problems Causes Class Action Lawsuit

AMISIAL MEDSPA: Beauvais Sues Over Retaliation and Unpaid Wages
AMNEAL PHARMA: Court Okays Direct Purchasers' Settlement in Opana
AMNEAL PHARMA: No Final Approval Yet of Actavis Suit Settlement
AMNEAL PHARMA: No Progress Yet in Eaton Suit in Canada
ANTHONY ANNUCCI: Zielinski Files Suit in S.D. New York

ARKANSAS DOC: Davis Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
ART MONEY: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ASSESSOR OF GREAT NECK ESTATES: Yeung Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ASSESSOR OF MALVERNE: Fiorelli Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ASSESSOR OF MALVERNE: Frederick Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.

ASSESSOR OF MINEOLA: Burek Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ASSESSOR OF MINEOLA: Xamo Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ATELIER FASHION: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ATI PHYSICAL: Hearing on Motions Set for April 20, 2023
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Settlement in Parker Suit for Court Approval

BARCLAYS BANK: Class Settlement to be Heard on March 14, 2023
BAUDAX BIO: Parties Await Ruling on Settlement Approval
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Donadio Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Intrauterine Contraceptives
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Alka-Seltzer Plus

BCG ATTORNEY: Order on Bids for Class Certification Entered
BERKELEY LIGHTS: Continues to Defend Ng Securities Class Suit
BIRD GLOBAL: Faces Arias Suit Over Drop in Share Price
BLUECREW LLC: Dela Cruz Suit Removed to N.D. California
BOLLA OPERATING: Fails to Pay Clerks' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA

BRIDGETON, NJ: Code Enforcement Class Action Settlement Approved
BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit
BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Newton Class Action
BRITISH ISLES: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BUCHANAN AUTOMOTIVE: Kennedy Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania

CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set May 21
CARGILL INC: Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Anticompetitive Suit
CARLOTTA CAR: Faces Class Action Over Repossessed Vehicles
CAVALIER GALLERY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CEL TECH CONTRACTING: Anariba Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

CELGENE CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Revlimid Drug Monopoly
CENTRAL COVENTRY: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Almagno Suit
CHARLES A WALBURG: Contreras Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHEWY INC: Licea Suit Removed to S.D. California
CLARIVATE PLC: Continues to Defend Three Securities Class Suits

CLEVELAND AVE: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Reply by Dec. 6
CLUTCH CORP: Nunez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
COCA-COLA CO: Barnes Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
COLORADO DOC: Hastings Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
COLUMBIA RECYCLING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De La Fuente Says

COWBOY BRAZILIAN: Firestone Sues Over Illegal Retention of Tips
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Henriquez Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
CREDIT ADJUSTMENT: Smay Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona
CREDIT COLLECTION: Friedman Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
CREDIT CONTROL: Wilkerson Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California

CROCS INC: Esparza Suit Removed to S.D. California
CRONOS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Shareholders Suit Pending
CRONOS GROUP: Ontario Appeals Court Overturns Cert. Bid Dismissal
CURB MOBILITY: Faces Zakheim Suit Over Undisclosed Service Fees
CVR REFINING: Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 16

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Faces Rosencrants Class Suit
DC WINERY: Seeks More Time to File Opposition to Class Cert Bid
DELIVERY DRIVERS: Shelton Suit Removed to S.D. California
DELTA STAR: Hernandez Suit Removed to N.D. California
DESIGNER BRANDS: Joint Briefing Schedule Entered in Laguardia

DEUTSCHE BANK: Sued Over Negligent Acts and Omissions
DINING INNOVATION: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DYNAMIC COLOR IMAGES: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EAH COMMUNITY: Villa Sues Over Failure to Pay All Hours Worked
EARGO INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit on Dec 16

EASTERSEALS-GOODWILL: Kilgore Files Suit in D. Utah
ELANCO ANIMAL: Continues to Defend Hunter Shareholder Class Suit
ELANCO ANIMAL: Continues to Defend Saffron Securities Class Suit
ENVIROCHEM INC: Engesser Sues Over Sex-Based Discrimination
EVOLUS INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit

EVOLUS INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
EXXON MOBIL: Sued Over Undisclosed Dangers
FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE: Culver Sues Over Vaccine Discrimination
FANDUEL INC: Esparza Suit Removed to S.D. California
FOLGERS COFFEE: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Marketing Suit

FRED MEYER: Faces $5-M Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Quinones, Gregory Suits
FTX TRADING: Harris Beach Attorneys Discuss Investor Class Action
FULGENT GENETICS: Denies Allegations in Securities Suit in Calif.
GALLERY MODEL HOMES: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GAME OVER VIDEOGAMES: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GEOFF STANLEY: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in McGowan Suit
GEORGIA-PACIFIC WOOD: Harris, McCullum Seek Rule 23 Class Status
GERON CORP: $24MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 30, 2023
GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Action for $391.5-Mil.

GOOGLE LLC: Landfair Suit Removed to N.D. California
GOOGLE LLC: Scheduling Order Entered in Digital Ads Antitrust Suit
GRETCHEN WHITMER: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 5
GRUBHUB INC: $42MM Settlement to be Heard on January 12, 2023
H&K PERFORATING: Farber Files Suit in N.D. Illinois

HALLMARK CARDS: Discloses Website Visitors' Info, Class Suit Says
HAPPY STREET: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Hutley Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: IRPA Class Action Dismissal Affirmed
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Kwong Class Suit Market Claim Hearing Date Vacated

IMMIGRANT ELDER HOME: Akter Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: $4MM Settlement to be Heard on January 19, 2023
INLAND FRESH: Bolton Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plans
INTERNATIONAL DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Suit Says
IRIS ENERGY: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Financial Info

IRVINE COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
JABIL INC: Huynh Suit Removed to N.D. California
JACKPOCKET INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JP MORGAN: Sued Over Negligent Acts and Omissions
KAV HEALTH: Court OK's Bid to Stay Pending 6th Cir. Decision

KEVIN DAVIS: Plan of Allocation Submitted by Lead Counsel OK'd
L'OREAL USA: Faces Class Action Over Benzene in Redken Dry Shampoo
L'OREAL USA: Faces Class Action Over Hair Straighteners, Relaxers
L. L. BEAN: Garcia Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping in Website
LAKE MICHIGAN: Cook Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan

LAMPSUSA LLC: Joint Pretrial Order Proposal Extended to Dec. 9
LAUNDRESS LLC: Skillman Sues Over Deceptive, Misleading Marketing
LIBERTY LATIN: Continues to Defend VTR Class Action
LOYAL SOURCE: Briefing Sched for Class Cert Continued in Diaz
LUCID GROUP INC: Continues to Defend Mangino and Goel Class Suits

LUCID GROUP INC: Taylor Shareholder Derivative Suit Ongoing
LUCKIN COFFEE: $7MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 31, 2023
LYFT INC: Continues to Defend Multiple Putative & Derivative Suits
MACHHAL J&P: Delgado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MAKER WINE COMPANY: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Suit Seeks Class Certification
MASSACHUSETTS: Sued Over COVID-19 Contact-Tracing Spyware
MAZDA MOTOR: Dissemination of Notice to Class Members Approved
MCKESSON MEDICAL: Maldonado Suit Removed to C.D. California
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: BCTGM Atlantic Sues Over Opioids Marketing

MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Allen Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Eisen Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Martin Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Mortensen
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Sloane Suit

MEIJER INC: Bridges Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
MERCEDES BENZ: Stipulation to Vacate Class Cert Deadlines Filed
MERCEDES-BENZ AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Emission Defects
MICHAELS STORES: Crawford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MIDWEST DIVISION: Class Action Settlement in Marquez Initially OK'd

MOMENTUM CAPITAL: Cardero Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
MONSANTO CO: Judge Ordered $37.5-M Deal in Chemical Pollution Suit
MONTREAL, QC: To Pay $3-M Settlement to Maple Spring Protesters
MOTION MEDIA: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MZI CHERRY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Anderson Suit Claims

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Groves Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Golden Sues Over Video Privacy Violations
NESTLE USA: Judge Recommends Dismissal of 401(k) Class Action
NETWORK RECOVERY: Berger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
NIKE INC: Averts Gender Discrimination Class Action Suit

NISSAN NORTH: Faces Schwarz Class Suit Over Obsolete 3D Modems
NUVE MIGUEL: Hernandez Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot  
OAKBEND MEDICAL: Faniel Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
OAKWOOD UNIVERSITY: Diaz Files Suit in S.D. California
OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Faces Lilien Suit Over Drop in Share Price

OLD AJ INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OLD DOMINION: Davis Suit Alleges Mismanagement of Retirement Plans
OLIVIA ROSING: KAOH Media Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
ORACLE CORP: Class Settlement to be Heard on January 12, 2023
PANDUIT CORP: Asante-Appiah Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

PEREGRINE ENTERPRISES: Appeals Ruling in Brown Suit to 2nd Cir.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Rottenberg Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
POSHMARK INC: Bushansky Sues Over False and Misleading Statement
POSTER HOUSE: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POW! ENTERTAINMENT: $950,000 Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 9

PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Horowitz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid
PRYSMIAN CABLES: Montana Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Kentucky
REALREAL INC: Settlement in Shareholder Suit Approved
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit

ROCKET MORTGAGE: 4th Cir. Vacates, Remands Class Cert. Ruling
ROCKLER RETAIL: Paduano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RYDER TRANSPORTATION: Johnson Suit Removed to N.D. California
SAINT AGNES MEDICAL: Crouch Suit Removed to E.D. California
SAM BANKMAN-FRIED: Kavuri Sues Over False Representations

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appointment of Milberg as Lead Counsel Sought
SEAMLESS CONTACTS: Must Face Class Action Over Personal Info Use
SECOND ROUND: Gamble Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
SEPHORA USA: Products Contain Synthetic Ingredients, Suit Says
SHI INTERNATIONAL: Mantagas Suit Removed to D. New Jersey

SKYLER ZHANG: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fields Suit Alleges
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Dec. 19 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
SOLSTICE MANAGEMENT: Gasaway Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
SOMNIA INC: Henderson Files Suit in S.D. New York
SONIA RYKIEL: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SOULFUL NUTRITION: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STARKIST CO: Certioari Petition in Mislabeled Tuna Suit Denied
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Can't Demand Arbitration in Privacy Class Suit
SUTTER VALLEY: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought
SUTTER VALLEY: Ward, et al., Seek to Certify Classes, Subclasses

SYNGENTA CROP: Day Farms Sues Over Crop Pesticides' Monopoly
SYNGENTA CROP: HYS Farms Sues Over Crop Pesticides' Monopoly
TALKSPACE INC: Continues to Defend Baron Securities Class Suit
TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS: Buncombe County Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
TEMPEST THERAPEUTICS: Chiu Suit Final Settlement for Court Approval

TEMPEST THERAPEUTICS: Dahhan Action Settlement for Final Approval
TEMPEST THERAPEUTICS: OvaScience Final Settlement for Court OK
TESLA INC: Faces Suit Over Vehicles' Defective Suspension Parts
TJX COMPANIES: Barrett Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
TOMMY HILFIGER: Licea Suit Removed to S.D. California

TORRID HOLDINGS: Faces Waswick Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
TOWER HEALTH: Tracks Patients' Health Care Info, Santoro Claims
TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Dismissed Class Action Suit Over Frame Rust
TWITTER INC: Fails to Give 60 Days Written Notice, Rodriguez Says
UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Murphy Sues Over Deceptive Conduct

UNITED FURNITURE: Alomari Sues Over WARN Act Violation
UNITED FURNITURE: Faces Class Suit Over Mass Layoffs Without Notice
UNITI GROUP: $38.9M Securities Suit Deal No Final Approval Yet
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Appeals Court Nixes Class Action Over Fees
VALLEYSTAR CREDIT: Waller Files Suit in W.D. Virginia

VALUE DRUG: Violates Antitrust Laws, Class Action Suit Says
VAXART INC: $12MM Settlement to be Heard on January 12, 2023
VEKSTRATE ONE: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VITAL FARMS: Usler Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
VOYAGER EARN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 10

VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Putative Class Action Pending In E.D.N.Y.
WALMART INC: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Briefing Filed
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over High Live-Streaming Rates
WHEELER REAL ESTATE: Files Bid to Dismiss Cedar Shareholder Suit
WHEELER REAL ESTATE: Krasner Shareholder Class Suit Ongoing

WHEELER REAL ESTATE: Steamboat Class Suit Trial Set for May 2023
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Faces Class Action Over Turkey Price-Fixing
WORKHORSE GROUP: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit
WORKHORSE GROUP: Settlement in Securities Suit for Court Approval
XCEL ENERGY: Judge Denied Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Marshall Fire

YORKBRIDGE WEALTH: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZOETIS AUSTRALIA: Horse Owners' $53M Hendra Vaccine Suit Tossed
[*] Canada Shifts to Slightly Stricter Class Certification Process
[*] Israeli Class Suit Reforms May Affect Public Companies' Rights

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Air & Liquid Faces Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Int'l. Has 211 Cases Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Still Receives Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Faces Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Defends Personal Injury Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Faces 1,962 Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Faces 2,075 Lawsuits as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Assumes Defense of PI Lawsuits


                            *********

4PATRIOTS LLC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 4Patriots, LLC. The
case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. 4Patriots, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09976 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2022).

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

4Patriots -- https://4patriots.com/ -- champion freedom and
self-reliance by offering high-quality products that help our
customers become more self-reliant and independent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


7 A.M. ENFANT: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 7 A.M. Enfant, Inc.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. 7 A.M. Enfant, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09901 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022).

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

7 A.M. Enfant -- https://www.7amenfant.com/ -- offer a variety of
versatile, urban and stylish outerwear baby accessories that
combine clever designs, quality materials, and fashion-forward
fabrics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


A2 RAILLA: Correa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Correa, as an aggrieved employee and on behalf of all
other aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorney's
General Act of 2004 v. A2 RAILLA DEVELOPMENT, INC., a California
corporation; SHANGRI-LA CONSTRUCTION, L.P., a California limited
partnership; BUILD GROUP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a California
corporation; BUILD GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV36830 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 21, 2022), is brought against the Defendants
seeking overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of premium wages for
missed meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, waiting
time penalties, wage state penalties, failure to indemnify work
related expenses, and other such provision of California law, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in violations of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants had and have a policy or practice of failing to pay
overtime wages to Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees in the
State of California in violation of California state wage and hour
laws as a result of, without limitation, the Plaintiff working over
8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive work days
in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked
in excess of 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, and seven
consecutive work days in a work week by, among other things,
failing to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually
worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee.

The Defendant A2 is a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the laws of the State of 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
          Phone: (310) 438-5555
          Fax: (310) 300-1705
          Email: david@tomorrawlaw.com
                 rex@tomorrowlaw.com


ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Continues to Defend Faille Shareholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AdaptHealth Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Faille Shareholder Class Suit.

On July 29, 2021, Robert Charles Faille Jr., a purported
shareholder of the Company, filed a purported class action
complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (the "Complaint").

The Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the Company's stock between November 11, 2019
and July 16, 2021.

The Complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of its
current and former officers violated federal securities laws by
making allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failing to
disclose material information regarding the Company's organic
growth trajectory. The Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On October 14, 2021, the Delaware County Employees Retirement
System and the Bucks County Employees Retirement System were named
Lead Plaintiffs. Pursuant to the scheduling order, Lead Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint on November 22, 2021 (the
"Consolidated Complaint"), which asserts substantially the same
claim, but adds a number of current and former directors of the
Company as additional defendants and a new theory of recovery based
on the Company's alleged failure to disclose information concerning
the Company's former Co-CEO's alleged tax fraud arising from
certain past private activity (the "Consolidated Class Action").

On January 20, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint. Lead Plaintiffs' opposition to defendants'
motion was filed on March 21, 2022, and defendants' reply was filed
April 15, 2022.

On June 9, 2022, the court issued an opinion and order denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.
On July 15, 2022, the court entered a scheduling order providing
for, inter alia, a schedule for completing class certification
discovery, as well as setting a briefing schedule for motions for
class certification.

Pursuant to the scheduling order, Lead Plaintiffs filed their
motion for class certification on July 28, 2022. The defendants’
opposition to Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
due to be filed on January 20, 2023; and Lead Plaintiffs' reply is
due to be filed on March 10, 2023.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations
contained in the Consolidated Complaint, but there can be no
assurance that the defense will be successful.

AdaptHealth provides home medical equipment. The Company sells and
leases mobility and oxygen equipment, wheelchairs, walkers, and
sleep therapy supplies.

ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Continues to Defend Hessler Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
AdaptHealth Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Hessler Derivative Class Suit.

On December 6, 2021, a putative shareholder of the Company, Carol
Hessler, filed a shareholder derivative complaint against certain
current and former directors and officers of the Company in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (the "Derivative Complaint"). The Derivative Complaint
generally alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the company by allegedly causing or allowing
misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the Company's organic
growth and Luke McGee's alleged criminal activity, failing to
maintain an adequate system of oversight, disclosure controls and
procedures, and internal controls over financial reporting and due
diligence into the Company's management team, and engaging in
insider trading. The Derivative Complaint also alleges claims for
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.

Finally, the Derivative Complaint alleges that certain of the
individual defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act by allegedly negligently issuing, causing to be
issued, and participating in the issuance of materially misleading
statements to stockholders in the Company's Proxy Statements on
Schedule DEF 14A in connection with a Special Meeting of
Stockholders, held on March 3, 2021, and the 2021 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders, held on July 27, 2021. The Derivative Complaint
seeks, among other things, an award of money damages.

On March 4, 2022, the parties stipulated to stay the Hessler action
pending final resolution of the Consolidated Class Action. On March
7, 2022, the court so-ordered the parties' stipulation.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations
contained in the Derivative Complaint, but there can be no
assurance that the defense will be successful.

AdaptHealth provides home medical equipment. The Company sells and
leases mobility and oxygen equipment, wheelchairs, walkers, and
sleep therapy supplies.

ADIDAS AMERICA: Licea Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Miguel Licea, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Adidas America, Inc., Does 1 through
25, inclusive, Case No. CIV-SB-2216418 was removed from the San
Bernardino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Nov. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-02077 to the
proceeding.

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

Adidas America, Inc. -- https://www.adidas-group.com/ -- is a
leader in sports footwear, apparel and equipment. The company makes
athletic clothing and gear such as shoes, clothing, skis,
snowboards and in-line skates.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Purvi G. Patel, Esq.
          MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Bouelvard Suite 6000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
          Phone: (213) 892-5200
          Fax: (213) 892-5454
          Email: ppatel@mofo.com


AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Toole Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------
Affirm Holdings, 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 Northern
District of California Court dismissed the Toole Putative Class
Suit and enters judgment in the Company's favor.

On February 28, 2022, plaintiff Jeffrey Toole filed a putative
class action against Affirm and Max Levchin in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (the "Toole action").


The Toole action alleged that Affirm violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
issuing and then subsequently deleting a tweet from its official
Twitter account on February 10, 2022, which omitted full details of
Affirm's second quarter fiscal 2022 financial results.

Plaintiff sought class certification, unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, and costs and expenses.

On September 28, 2022, the Court granted Affirm's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim with leave to amend within 21 days. No
amended complaint was filed by the deadline.

On October 20, 2022, the Court dismissed the putative class action
and entered judgment in Affirm's favor.

Affirm Holdings, Inc. provides financial services based in
California.



AG ARCADIA: Anthony Sues Over Failure to Provide Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Onisha Anthony, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees
with v. AG ARCADIA, LLC and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV36624 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 21, 2022), is
brought against the Defendant who has violated numerous Labor Code
Sections by failing to provide the Plaintiff with the minimum
wages.

The Defendants did not provide the Plaintiff with the minimum wages
to which they were entitled for work performed and as such did not
compensate Plaintiff and others for all hours worked at the minimum
wage rate pursuant to California Labor Codes. This is so because
Plaintiff and others would often have to work through their meal
periods, or their meal periods would be interrupted due to patient
needs. There were also instances wherein the Plaintiff would be
clocked out or not clocked-in, but has had to help a patient (go to
the bathroom and other similar occurrences). Moreover, the
Defendants had a policy and practice of rounding down employee
hours to the detriment of employees, resulting in minimum wage
violations in that all employees were not paid for all actual hours
worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff started working for AG ARCADIA on or around May 2021
through an agency and then June 2021 through the company itself as
a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA).

AG ARCADIA, LLC is and was a California corporation, doing business
in Los Angeles County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIR CANADA: Halifax Plane Crash Recording Can Be Disclosed in Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bronskill at The Canadian Press reports that the cockpit voice
recording from an Air Canada plane that crashed on a Halifax runway
can be disclosed to parties in a class-action lawsuit, the Supreme
Court of Canada has ruled.

In a 7-2 judgment, the top court upheld a Nova Scotia judge's
decision to make the recording available on the basis it contained
information that was reliable, relevant and key to resolving the
dispute.

Several people were injured when Flight AC624 landed in wind and
heavy snow in late March 2015, prompting a lawsuit against Air
Canada, plane manufacturer Airbus S.A.S. and others.

The plane, arriving from Toronto, hit the snow-covered terrain
short of the runway, bounced into the air and struck the ground
twice more before sliding along the tarmac and coming to rest.
Twenty-five people were taken to hospital.

In preparing a public report on the accident, the federal
Transportation Safety Board drew on a variety of materials,
including the recording of conversations among flight crew members
and other sounds in the cockpit.

A statutory privilege of confidentiality applies to cockpit voice
recordings, meaning the authorization of a court or coroner is
needed before they can be used in legal proceedings.

Gaps in record
Halifax lawyer Ray Wagner and his firm represent more than a
hundred passengers in the class-action lawsuit against Air Canada,
Nav Canada, Transport Canada, the Halifax International  Airport
Authority and Airbus.

The lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2015, in the Nova Scotia Supreme
Court and Wagner said it can now proceed.

He said while the defendants were collectively responsible for the
accident, having a complete record was important for assigning
proportional responsibility.

"[Passengers] want to have it resolved. They want to move on with
their lives. And some people need it because they can't work and
they need care," he said.

Wagner said the cockpit voice recording is necessary to fill in
gaps in the evidentiary record.

According to Wagner, there were two competing interests that the
judges had to weigh -- the privacy of the pilot and co-pilot and
the interest of the administration of justice.

"The big question was balancing those two important interests to
determine which is the prevailing interest here," he told CBC
News..

"The pilot and co-pilot didn't have a great recollection of the
nuances and the particulars and the communications in the cockpit
as it approached to Halifax International Airport. And so there
were gaps."

Wagner said he does not have a timeline for when the cockpit voice
recording will be turned over to his firm but expects it should be
within 10 days.

                       Airbus Wanted Access

Airbus S.A.S. sought access to the voice recording and a
transcript, arguing it was necessary for a fair trial -- a move the
Transportation Safety Board, though not a party in the class
action, opposed in court.

A Nova Scotia judge refused to allow the safety board to make
submissions in the absence of other parties and the public. He also
directed the board to produce a copy of the recording and
transcript for use in the class action under "very stringent
conditions," limiting disclosure to the parties and their experts,
consultants, insurers and lawyers in order to preserve
confidentiality.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld both the refusal to hear
private submissions and the disclosure order, prompting the safety
board to take its case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The board contended that Parliament's aim in establishing the
privilege attached to cockpit voice recordings -- protecting pilot
privacy and promoting public safety in air transportation -- would
be undermined if the Halifax recording were disclosed in the class
action.

No reviewable error
In writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, Justice Nicholas
Kasirer found the Nova Scotia judge made no reviewable error in
refusing to allow the board to make closed-door submissions in the
matter, nor in ordering disclosure of the recording.

Kasirer said it was evident the judge applied the correct test
concerning disclosure, properly identifying and weighing the two
competing interests -- the public interest in the proper
administration of justice and the public interests underlying the
privilege.

"The overall weighing of the factors by the chambers judge was
fact-driven and discretionary. Based on the evidence and the
strength of his findings of fact, he was entitled to conclude that
limited production should be ordered," Kasirer wrote.

"Others might have balanced differently by assigning more weight to
some of the factors and less to others in the circumstances. But
absent an error of law, a palpable and overriding error of fact or
proof that discretion has been abused, the chambers judge's
balancing should not be disturbed."[GN]

AMERICAN HONDA: Oil Dilution Problems Causes Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood at carcomplaints.com reports that Honda oil dilution
problems have caused a class action lawsuit that alleges vehicles
equipped with 1.5-liter gasoline direct injection engines have
defects that cause fuel to mix with oil.

The lawsuit says 2019-2023 Honda CR-V, 2019-2022 Honda Civic and
2018-2022 Honda Accord vehicles allegedly stall and suffer engine
failures.

The Honda oil dilution class action lawsuit was filed by two
customers.

Illinois plaintiff Eliyahu Wolf purchased a new 2020 Honda Civic
and has brought his Civic to the dealership for "routine oil
changes and maintenance two times since his purchase of the
vehicle." The plaintiff also says he brought his vehicle to a
different Honda dealer twice for maintenance.

Even though dealer technicians always said his Honda Civic was
working fine and had no problems, the plaintiff claims he "does not
have a vehicle that is safe or reliable as advertised by Honda."

Iowa plaintiff Miranda Phelps purchased a new 2021 Honda CR-V, and
in January 2022 the check engine light illuminated indicating an
alleged emissions system problem.

Phelps says she also smelled strong exhaust outside of the vehicle.
She says she took the CR-V to a non-Honda service shop and
technicians cleared the light.

But in February the vehicle began emitting smoke and went into
"limp mode" while she was driving to work. The lawsuit alleges she
had the Honda towed to a Honda dealer where technicians found fuel
in the vehicle oil.

The plaintiff says technicians inspected the Honda for "the source
of the problem, reportedly found no other issues, changed the oil,
and tried to burn the excess fuel out of the engine system."

According to the class action, the Honda CR-V went into limp mode
in March about three hours away from home.

The plaintiff says she had the CR-V towed to a Honda dealer where
technicians performed a cylinder test and "all injectors passed,"
performed a software update, ensured the "engine no longer
[misfires]," and test drove to confirm "all is well."

A little over a week later the CR-V again entered limp mode while
she was on her way to work. She had the vehicle towed to a dealer
where technicians allegedly said the oil level was "2 inches too
high on stick."

The oil dilution lawsuit says technician replaced the fuel
injectors and changed the oil and noted "excessive fuel in oil."

On April 18, plaintiff Phelps "noticed a noxious fuel smell coming
from her vehicle and preemptively" brought the CR-V to a Honda
dealer. Technicians confirmed the oil level was "about 1 inch[ ]
above specs," and "smell[ed] like gas."

The technician ordered a new high pressure fuel pump and drained
all the oil from the vehicle and replaced it with fresh oil.

The plaintiff says she took her vehicle to the dealer in May "out
of concern that there was excessive oil in her fuel. Technicians
confirmed this and replaced the high pressure fuel pump. The oil
was drained again and replaced with fresh oil."

The class action lawsuit alleges the plaintiff "does not have a
vehicle that is safe or reliable as advertised by Honda."

The Honda oil dilution lawsuit says all sorts of issues result from
oil mixed with gas, including engine problems and wear, faulty
engine lubrication, fuel odors and vehicles that enter limp mode.
The Honda vehicles can also allegedly stall or suffer complete
failures of the 1.5L engines.

According to the oil dilution class action, Honda hasn't offered
permanent repairs and hasn't recalled the vehicles.

However, Honda has announced other actions in the past regarding
oil dilution problems which you can read below.

The Honda oil dilution class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: Eliyahu Wolf
et al., v. American Honda Motors Co., Inc.

The plaintiff is represented by Fegan Scott LLC, the Law Offices of
David Freydin, and Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese PC. [GN]

AMISIAL MEDSPA: Beauvais Sues Over Retaliation and Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLA BEAUVAIS, Plaintiff v. AMISIAL MEDSPA LLC and EDY AMISIAL,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-23708-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November 11,
2022) brings this complaint on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated employees against the Defendants seeking to
recover damages for unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Florida Statutes.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as Office Administrator
beginning on or about May 5, 2022 until she was fired because she
objected to or refused to participate in the Defendants' activity
of improperly disposing of medical waste. Despite the Plaintiff's
multiple complaints about the Defendants' improper disposal of
biohazard medical waste, the Defendants continued its unlawful
conduct instead of correcting its wrongdoings.

Accordingly, improper disposal of medical waste is a violation of
Section 381.0098, Florida Statutes - Biomedical Waste and Chapter
64E-16, of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC) and OSHA
Interpretation Letter dated June 2, 2009, authored by Richard E.
Fairfax, Director of Directorate of Enforcement Programs. In
addition, the firing of the Plaintiff is a wrongful act in
violation of the Florida Whistle-blower's Act, Section 448.102(3),
Florida Statutes.

The Plaintiff also claims that he worked approximately 10.75 hours
per week throughout her employment with the Defendants. However,
the Defendants failed to properly compensate her at one and
one-half times her regular rate of pay for the overtime hours she
was required by the Defendants to perform.

The Plaintiff seeks actual damages in the amount shown to be due
for unpaid wages and overtime compensation, as well as liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and other
relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

Amisial MedSpa LLC provides botox and fillers medical procedure
services. Edy Amisial is a doctor and owner of the Corporate
Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juliana Cortes, Esq.
          Tanesha Blye, Esq.
          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Tel: (305) 503-5131
          Fax: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: juliana@saenzanderson.com
                  tblye@saenzanderson.com
                  msaenz@saenzanderson.com

AMNEAL PHARMA: Court Okays Direct Purchasers' Settlement in Opana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that on
November 3, 2022, the N.D. Ill. approved the direct purchasers'
settlement agreement in In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (MDL
No. 2580) ("MDL").

From June 2014 to April 2015, several complaints styled as class
actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (or
end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of
certain direct purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") of Opana ER(R)
were filed against Endo and Impax.

In December 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the "JPML") transferred the actions to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ("N.D.
Ill.") for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re: Opana ER
Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2580) ("MDL").

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic
competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages, and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.

In June 2022, Impax entered into a preliminary settlement agreement
with the class of direct purchasers that, if all conditions are
satisfied, would result in the resolution of substantially all the
direct purchasers' and individual complainants' underlying claims
and lawsuits in the MDL. At the same time, Impax entered into a
settlement agreement with individual complainants that resolved all
of their claims and lawsuits in the MDL. Subsequently, Impax
entered into a separate preliminary settlement agreement with the
class of indirect purchasers that, if all conditions are satisfied,
would result in the resolution of substantially all the indirect
purchasers' underlying claims and lawsuits in the MDL. The
preliminary settlement agreements are referred to herein
collectively as the "Preliminary Settlement Agreements," and the
direct purchaser plaintiffs, indirect purchaser plaintiffs, and
individual complainants are referred to herein collectively as "the
Plaintiffs."

On November 3, 2022, the N.D. Ill. approved the direct purchasers'
settlement.

Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Company has agreed to
pay a total of $265.0 million between 2022 and mid-January 2024 to
resolve substantially all the Plaintiffs' claims. 3% interest is
due on $150.0 million payable between December 2022 and mid-January
2024.

The settlement agreements are not an admission of liability or
fault by Impax, the Company or its subsidiaries, and with respect
to the Preliminary Settlement Agreements between Impax and the
purported classes of (i) direct purchaser plaintiffs and (ii)
indirect purchaser plaintiffs, they are subject to court approval.
Upon satisfaction of the relevant pre-conditions, including but not
limited to court approval of the final settlement agreements,
substantially all the claims and lawsuits in the litigation will
have been resolved.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2022, the Company
recorded a pre-tax charge of $262.8 million associated with the
settlement agreements and the Preliminary Settlement Agreements.
Imputed interest of $2.2 million will be recognized to interest
expense during the payment period.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an American publicly traded
generics and specialty pharmaceutical company. The company is
headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

AMNEAL PHARMA: No Final Approval Yet of Actavis Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that the
settlement in the case captioned Sergeants Benevolent Association
Health & Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC, et. al. has not yet obtained
final court approval.

In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed
against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis plc) and
numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest
Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic
versions of Forest's Namenda IR product.

The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and
state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege
in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly
purchased Namenda(R) IR or its generic equivalents in various
states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants'
allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiff seeks, among
other things, unspecified monetary damages, and equitable relief,
including disgorgement and restitution.

On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser
plaintiff's claims pending factual development or resolution of
claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct
purchasers (in which the Company is not a defendant).

On September 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay and referred the
case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of
supplemental, non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to
be scheduled in 2019. The parties thereafter participated in
supplemental discovery, as well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss
briefing.

On December 26, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiff's claims.

On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the
indirect purchaser plaintiff informed the Magistrate Judge that
they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019.

In June 2019, the Company reached a settlement with the plaintiff,
subject to Court approval.

On September 10, 2019, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the case as to
the settling defendants (including the Company), until the
disposition of the claims against the non-settling defendants. The
remaining defendants have recently settled with the plaintiff.

All parties will file proposed materials seeking final approval of
the settlements and to finally resolve the case on November 8,
2022, after which time the settlement will be subject to final
approval from the Court.

The amount of the settlement was not material to the Company's
consolidated financial statements.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an American publicly traded
generics and specialty pharmaceutical company. The company is
headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

AMNEAL PHARMA: No Progress Yet in Eaton Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that the
case captioned Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et. al., No.
T-607-20 has not progressed to date.

On June 3, 2020, the Company and Impax were also named in a
putative class action complaint filed in the Federal Court of
Canada in Toronto, Ontario against numerous generic pharmaceutical
manufacturers, on behalf of a putative class of individuals who
purchased generic drugs in the private sector from 2012 to the
present (Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et. al., No.
T-607-20). The complaint alleges price fixing, among other claims.


On August 23, 2022, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

The case has otherwise not progressed to date.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an American publicly traded
generics and specialty pharmaceutical company. The company is
headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

ANTHONY ANNUCCI: Zielinski Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anthony Annucci. The
case is styled as Jeremy Zielinski, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Anthony Annucci, JPAY, LLC, Julie
Wolcott, D. Leonard, Case No. 1:22-cv-10050-UA (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Prison Condition for Prisoner Civil
Rights.

Anthony J. Annucci was named the Acting Commissioner of the New
York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ARKANSAS DOC: Davis Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arkansas Department
of Corrections, et al. The case is styled as Kristina Davis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Arkansas Department of Corrections, Solomon Graves, Secretary of
the Arkansas Department of Corrections, in his official capacity
and in his individual capacity, Case No. 4:22-cv-01140-DPM (E.D.
Ark., Nov. 22, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Arkansas Division of Correction --
https://doc.arkansas.gov/correction/ -- provides fair, firm,
consistent and superior correctional services as mandated by the
courts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
          David Slade, Esq.
          Stewart Whaley, Esq.
          WH LAW
          1 Riverfront Dr., Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Phone: (501) 255-7577
          Fax: (501) 222-3027
          Email: brandon@wh.law
                 slade@wh.law
                 stewart@wh.law

          Jeffrey M. Rosenzweig, Esq.
          300 Spring Building, Suite 310
          Little Rock, AR 72201-2421
          Phone: (501) 372-5247
          Email: jrosenzweig@att.net

               - and -

          Jordan Brown Tinsley, Esq.
          TINSLEY & YOUNGDAHL, PLLC
          Post Office Box 7487
          Little Rock, AR 72217
          Phone: (501) 374-2099
          Fax: (501) 374-2098
          Email: jordan@tyattorney.com

               - and -

          Lauren M. Elenbaas, Esq.
          THE SHAW FIRM
          1315 Main Street
          Conway, AR 72034
          Phone: (501) 329-5803
          Email: laurenshawlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Michael Kiel Kaiser, Esq.
          LASSITER & CASSINELLI
          1218 West Sixth Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 370-9300
          Fax: (501) 370-9306
          Email: michael@lcarklaw.com

ART MONEY: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Art Money U.S., Inc.
The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Art Money U.S., Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07107 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022).

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

Art Money -- https://www.artmoney.com/ -- makes owning art easy and
affordable.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASSESSOR OF GREAT NECK ESTATES: Yeung Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Great Neck Estates, et al. The case is styled as Connie
Yeung, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed
SCHEDULE A v. The Assessor of the Village of Great Neck Estates,
The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Great Neck
Estates, Respondents, Case No. 616335/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau
Cty., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Great Neck Estates -- https://www.vgne.com/ -- is a village on the
Great Neck Peninsula in the Town of North Hempstead, in Nassau
County, on the North Shore of Long Island, in New York.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
          132 Spruce St
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915


ASSESSOR OF MALVERNE: Fiorelli Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Incorporated Village of Malverne, et al. The case is styled as
Maria Fiorelli, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the
annexed SCHEDULE A v. The Assessor of the Incorporated Village of
Malverne, The Board of Assessment Review of the Incorporated
Village of Malverne, Respondents, Case No. 616334/2022 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Malverne -- https://www.malvernevillage.org/ -- is a village in the
Town of Hempstead in Nassau County, on Long Island, in New York,
United States.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
          132 Spruce St
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915



ASSESSOR OF MALVERNE: Frederick Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Incorporated Village of Malverne, et al. The case is styled as
Meryl Frederick, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the
annexed SCHEDULE A v. The Assessor of the Incorporated Village of
Malverne, The Board of Assessment Review of the Incorporated
Village of Malverne, Respondents, Case No. 616408/2022 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 21, 2022).

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

Malverne -- https://www.malvernevillage.org/ -- is a village in the
Town of Hempstead in Nassau County, on Long Island, in New York,
United States.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
          132 Spruce St
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915


ASSESSOR OF MINEOLA: Burek Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Mineola, et al. The case is styled as Katharine Burek,
all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A
v. The Assessor of the Village of Mineola, The Board of Assessment
Review of the Village of Mineola, Respondents, Case No. 616332/2022
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Mineola -- https://www.mineola-ny.gov/ -- is a village in and the
county seat of Nassau County, on Long Island, in New York, United
States.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
          132 Spruce St
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915

ASSESSOR OF MINEOLA: Xamo Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Mineola, et al. The case is styled as Viktor Xamo,
Glejdis Xamo, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the
annexed SCHEDULE A v. The Assessor of the Village of Mineola, The
Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Mineola, Respondents,
Case No. 616331/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Mineola -- https://www.mineola-ny.gov/ -- is a village in and the
county seat of Nassau County, on Long Island, in New York, United
States.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
          132 Spruce St
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915


ATELIER FASHION: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atelier Fashion, Inc.
The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Atelier Fashion, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07085 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022).

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

Atelier Fashion, Inc. -- https://ateliernewyork.com/ -- retails
apparels. The Company distributes shirts, blouses, trousers,
skirts, shorts, jeans, jackets, vests, sweatshirts, coats, shoes,
socks, stockings, bags, and other products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATI PHYSICAL: Hearing on Motions Set for April 20, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------
ATI Physical Therapy 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 hearing to
hear motions of the defendant and plaintiff is set for April 20,
2023.

On August 18, 2021, plaintiff Asif Mehedi filed a putative
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Mehedi v. View, Inc. f/k/a CF
Finance Acquisition Corp. II et al. (No. 5:21CV06374, N.D. Cal.))
alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the Company,
Rao Mulpuri, and Vidul Prakash.

On February 8, 2022, the Court appointed Stadium Capital LLC lead
plaintiff and denied the competing motion of Sweta Sonthalia.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ms. Sonthalia's petition
for a writ of mandamus to vacate the lead plaintiff order.

On July 15, 2022, Stadium Capital filed an amended complaint
against View, Mulpuri, and Prakash; certain current and former View
board members; Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. and related entities;
officers and board members of CF II; and PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP.

The action is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of
(i) all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
View and/or CF II securities between November 30, 2020 and May 10,
2022, inclusive; (ii) all persons or entities who were holders of
CF II Class A common stock as of the January 27, 2021 record date
that were entitled to vote to approve the merger between View and
CF II; and (iii) all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired View securities pursuant or traceable to the Form S-4
Registration Statement filed by CF II on December 23, 2020.

The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5 thereunder), 14(a) (and Rule 14a-9 thereunder), and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
Securities Act.

The amended complaint alleges that certain defendants failed to
disclose to investors that the Company's warranty-related
obligations and associated cost of revenue were materially false
and misleading because they excluded expenses the Company incurred
and expected to incur due to significant quality issues.

The amended complaint alleges that certain defendants' positive
statements about the Company were false and materially misleading
as a result, and that such statements caused the price of the
Company's stock to be inflated.

The amended complaint alleges that class members were damaged when
the price of the Company’s stock declined on the trading day
following (1) August 16, 2021, when the Company announced an
independent investigation concerning the adequacy of the Company's
previously disclosed warranty accrual, and (2) May 10, 2022, when
the Company stated that management anticipated that it would be
disclosing substantial doubt about the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern and that the Company's cash position
was $200.5 million at the end of Q1 2022.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
costs, including attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss on October 6, 2022.

Pursuant to a stipulated schedule, Stadium Capital will file its
opposition(s) to the motions by November 14, 2022; and Defendants
will file any replies in support of the motions to dismiss by
December 14, 2022.

The motions are set for hearing on April 20, 2023.

ATI Physical Therapy is an American provider of physical therapy
services based in Bolingbrook, Illinois. Founded by exercise
physiologist Greg Steil in 1996 as one clinic in Willowbrook,
Illinois, ATI has more than 860 locations in the United States.


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Settlement in Parker Suit for Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises 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
settlement in Parker Stockholder Litigation is subject to court
approval.

On April 14, 2020, a putative B&W stockholder ("Plaintiff") filed a
derivative and class action complaint against certain of the
Company's directors (current and former), executives and
significant stockholders (collectively, "Defendants") and the
Company (as a nominal defendant). The action was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery and is captioned Parker v. Avril, et
al., C.A. No. 2020-0280-PAF (the "Stockholder Litigation").
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, among other things, did not
properly discharge their fiduciary duties in connection with the
2019 rights offering and related transactions.

On June 10, 2022, after pursuing private mediation, the parties to
the Stockholder Litigation reached a settlement agreement in
principle to resolve the Stockholder Litigation.

That settlement agreement includes (i) certain corporate governance
changes that the Company is willing to implement in the future,
(ii) a total payment of $9.5 million, and (iii) other customary
terms and conditions. All attorney's fees, administration costs,
and expenses associated with the settlement of this matter will be
deducted from the total payment amount, other than the cost of
notice, which will be borne by the Company.

Of the total settlement amount, the Company will pay $4.75 million
on behalf of B. Riley Financial, Inc. and Vintage Capital
Management, LLC pursuant to existing contractual indemnification
obligations to settle Plaintiff's direct claims asserted against
these entities. This $4.75 million, after the deduction of
attorney's fees and the customary settlement costs and expenses
described above, will be paid to shareholders of the Company,
excluding any Defendant in the Stockholder Litigation. The
remaining $4.75 million of the total settlement amount, after the
deduction of attorney's fees and the customary settlement costs and
expenses described above, will be paid to the Company from
insurance proceeds and the contribution of certain other parties to
the Stockholder Litigation to settle the derivative claims asserted
by Plaintiff on behalf of the Company.

The proposed settlement, which remains subject to court approval,
would resolve all claims that have been, could have been, could now
be, or in the future could, can, or might be asserted in the
Stockholder Litigation.

The settlement of this matter remains subject to court approval and
the amount to be paid by the Company is fully accrued and reflected
in Other accrued liabilities on the Company's Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2022.

Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. is a growing, globally-focused
renewable, environmental and thermal technologies provider based in
Ohio.


BARCLAYS BANK: Class Settlement to be Heard on March 14, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you transacted in Euroyen-Based Derivatives(1) from January 1,
2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive, then your rights will be
affected and you may be entitled to a benefit.  This Notice is only
a summary of the Settlements and is subject to the terms of the
Settlement Agreements2 and other relevant documents (available as
set forth below).

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights in
connection with three separate proposed settlements with Settling
Defendants Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., and Barclays
PLC (collectively, "Barclays"), Nex International Limited (f/k/a
ICAP plc) and ICAP Europe Limited (collectively, "ICAP"), and TP
ICAP plc (f/k/a Tullett Prebon plc and n/k/a TP ICAP Finance plc)
("Tullett Prebon") in the actions titled Laydon v. Mizuho Bank
Ltd., et al., No. 12-cv-3419 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Laydon
Action"), which is currently on appeal, and Fund Liquidation
Holdings LLC as assignee and successor-in-interest to Sonterra
Capital Master Fund, Ltd., et al. v. UBS AG, et al., No. 15-cv-5844
(GBD) (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Sonterra Action"). The separate settlements
with Barclays, ICAP, and Tullett Prebon (the "Settlements") are not
settlements with any other Defendant and thus are not dispositive
of any of Plaintiffs' claims against the remaining Defendants.

The Settlements have been proposed to resolve class action lawsuits
with these Settling Defendants concerning the alleged manipulation
of the London Interbank Offered Rate for Japanese Yen ("Yen-LIBOR")
and the Euroyen Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate ("Euroyen TIBOR") from
January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive. The Settlements
will provide an additional $22,500,000 to pay claims from persons
who transacted in Euroyen-Based Derivatives from January 1, 2006
through June 30, 2011, inclusive. If you qualify, you may send in a
Proof of Claim and Release form to potentially get benefits. Or you
can exclude yourself from the Settlements, or object to any part of
them.

If you timely submitted a Proof of Claim and Release pursuant to
any of the Prior Class Notices in this matter (defined below), then
you do not have to submit a new Proof of Claim and Release to
participate in these Settlements with the Settling Defendants. The
Prior Class Notices are: (i) the June 22, 2016 Notice ("2016
Notice") related to the $58 million settlements with Defendants
R.P. Martin Holdings Limited, Martin Brokers (UK) Ltd., Citigroup
Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citibank Japan Ltd., Citigroup Global Markets
Japan Inc., HSBC Holdings plc, and HSBC Bank plc; (ii) the August
3, 2017 Notice, amended September 14, 2017 (the "2017 Notice")
related to the $148 million settlements with Defendants Deutsche
Bank AG, DB Group Services (UK) Ltd., JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, and J.P. Morgan
Securities plc; (iii) the March 8, 2018 Notice ("2018 Notice")
related to the $30 million settlement with The Bank of
Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. and Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking
Corporation; or (iv) the September 11, 2019 Notice (the "2019
Notice") related to the $39,250,000 settlement with Mizuho Bank,
Ltd., Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd., and Mizuho Trust & Banking Co.,
Ltd., The Norinchukin Bank, and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking
Corporation, and the $31,750,000 settlement with The Bank of
Yokohama, Ltd., Shinkin Central Bank, The Shoko Chukin Bank, Ltd.,
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., and Resona Bank, Ltd..

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this
Notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a Fairness
Hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlements.

Who Is Included?

You are a member of the "Settlement Class" if you purchased, sold,
held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euroyen-Based
Derivatives at any time from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011,
inclusive. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) the
Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any
Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a
Defendant; and (ii) the United States Government.

Contact your brokerage firm to see if you purchased, sold, held,
traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euroyen-Based Derivatives.
If you are not sure whether you are included, you can get more
information, including the Settlement Agreements, Mailed Notice,
Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim and Release, and other important
documents, at www.EuroyenSettlement.com

("Settlement Website") or by calling toll-free 1-866-217-4453.

What Is This Litigation About?

Plaintiff alleges that each Defendant, from January 1, 2006 through
June 30, 2011, inclusive, manipulated or aided and abetted the
manipulation of Yen-LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of
Euroyen-Based Derivatives. Defendants allegedly did so by using
several means of manipulation. For example, panel banks that made
the daily Yen-LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR submissions to the British
Bankers' Association and Japanese Bankers Association respectively
(collectively, "Contributor Bank Defendants"), such as the Settling
Defendants, allegedly falsely reported their cost of borrowing in
order to financially benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives
positions. Contributor Bank Defendants also allegedly requested
that other Contributor Bank Defendants make false Yen-LIBOR and
Euroyen TIBOR submissions on their behalf to benefit their
Euroyen-Based Derivatives positions.

Plaintiff further alleges that inter-dealer brokers, intermediaries
between buyers and sellers in the money markets and derivatives
markets (the "Broker Defendants"), had knowledge of, and provided
substantial assistance to, the Contributor Bank Defendants'
foregoing alleged manipulations of Euroyen-Based Derivatives. For
example, Contributor Bank Defendants allegedly used the Broker
Defendants to manipulate Yen-LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices
of Euroyen-Based Derivatives by disseminating false "Suggested
LIBORs," publishing false market rates on broker screens, and
publishing false bids and offers into the market.

Plaintiff has asserted legal claims under various theories,
including federal antitrust law, the Commodity Exchange Act, the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common
law.

The Settling Defendants have consistently and vigorously denied
Plaintiff's allegations.  The Settling Defendants entered into the
Settlement Agreements with Plaintiff, despite each believing that
it is not liable for the claims asserted against it, to avoid the
further expense, inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome and
protracted litigation, thereby putting this controversy to rest and
avoiding the risks inherent in complex litigation.

What Do the Settlements Provide?

Under the Settlements, Barclays agreed to pay $17,750,000, ICAP
agreed to pay $2,375,000, and Tullett Prebon agreed to pay
$2,375,000 into Settlement Funds. If the Court approves the
Settlements, potential members of the Settlement Class who qualify
and have sent or will send valid Proof of Claim and Release forms
may receive a share of the Settlement Funds after they are reduced
by the payment of certain expenses. The Settlement Agreements,
available at the Settlement Website, describe all of the details
about the proposed Settlements. The exact amount each qualifying
Settling Class Member will receive from the Settlement Funds cannot
be calculated until (1) the Court approves the Settlements; (2)
certain amounts identified in the full Settlement Agreements are
deducted from the Settlement Funds; and (3) the number of
participating Settling Class Members and the amount of their claims
are determined. In addition, each Settling Class Member's share of
the Settlement Funds will vary depending on the information the
Settling Class Member provides on their Proof of Claim and Release
form.

The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case
to case. If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in a Proof
of Claim and Release form, you could get more money.

Under the Settlements, members of the Settlement Class will release
the Settling Defendants from all claims relating to conduct alleged
or which could have been alleged in the Laydon Action and the
Sonterra Action or which could have been alleged concerning any
Euroyen-Based Derivatives.  The full terms of the release can be
found in the Mailed Notice or the Settlement Agreements available
at www.EuroyenSettlement.com or by calling 1-866-217-4453.

How Do You Ask For a Payment?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you may seek to
participate in the Settlements by submitting a Proof of Claim and
Release to the Settlement Administrator at the address provided on
the Settlement Website postmarked no later than April 28, 2023. You
may obtain a Proof of Claim and Release on the Settlement Website
or by calling the toll-free number referenced above.  If you are a
member of the Settlement Class but do not timely file a Proof of
Claim and Release, you will still be bound by the releases set
forth in the Settlement Agreements if the Court enters an order
approving the Settlement Agreements.

Any member of the Settlement Class that previously submitted a
Proof of Claim and Release in connection with the 2016 Notice, 2017
Notice, 2018 Notice, or 2019 Notice does not have to submit a new
Proof of Claim and Release to participate in these Settlements with
the Settling Defendants and will be subject to and bound by the
releases set forth in the Settlement Agreements with the Settling
Defendants, unless such member submits a timely and valid request
for exclusion, explained below.

What Are Your Other Options?

All requests to be excluded from the Settlements must be made in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice
and must be postmarked to the Settlement Administrator no later
than February 7, 2023. The Settlement Notice, available at the
Settlement Website, explains how to exclude yourself or object.
All requests for exclusion must comply with the requirements set
forth in the Settlement Notice to be honored.  If you exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by the
Settlement Agreements and can independently pursue claims at your
own expense. However, if you exclude yourself, you will not be
eligible to share in the Net Settlement Funds or otherwise
participate in the Settlements.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing in these cases on
March 14, 2023, to consider whether to approve the Settlements and
a request by the lawyers representing all members of the Settlement
Class (Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.) for an award of attorneys' fees of
no more than twenty percent (20%), or $4,500,000, of the Settlement
Funds for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and
negotiating the Settlements; an award for unreimbursed litigation
costs and expenses in the amount of no more than $250,000; and an
award to replenish the litigation fund created to reimburse their
costs and expenses in the amount of no more than $500,000. The
lawyers for the Settlement Class may also seek additional
reimbursement of fees, costs, and expenses in connection with
services provided after the Fairness Hearing. These payments will
also be deducted from the Settlement Funds before any distributions
are made to the Settlement Class.

You may ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing, but you do not have
to. For more information, call toll-free 1-866-217-4453 or visit
the website www.EuroyenSettlement.com.

1 "Euroyen-Based Derivatives" means (i) a Euroyen TIBOR futures
contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME"); (ii) a Euroyen
TIBOR futures contract on the Tokyo Financial Exchange, Inc.
("TFX"), Singapore Exchange ("SGX"), or London International
Financial Futures and Options Exchange ("LIFFE") entered into by a
U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the
U.S.; (iii) a Japanese Yen currency futures contract on the CME;
(iv) a Yen-LIBOR- and/or Euroyen TIBOR-based interest rate swap
entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a
location within the U.S.; (v) an option on a Yen-LIBOR and/or a
Euroyen TIBOR-based interest rate swap ("swaption") entered into by
a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the
U.S.; (vi) a Japanese Yen currency forward agreement entered into
by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within
the U.S.; and/or (vii) a Yen-LIBOR- and/or Euroyen TIBOR-based
forward rate agreement entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a
Person from or through a location within the U.S.

2 The "Settlement Agreements" mean the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement with Barclays entered into on July 22, 2022, the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with ICAP entered into on
July 20, 2022, and the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with
Tullett Prebon entered into on July 20, 2022.


BAUDAX BIO: Parties Await Ruling on Settlement Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
Baudax Bio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that the final
settlement approval hearing for the Societal CDMO Securities Class
Suit was held on October 26, 2022. The parties are awaiting
decision.

On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, or the
Securities Litigation, was filed against Societal CDMO and certain
of Societal CDMO’s officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No.
2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made by
Societal CDMO concerning the NDA for injectable meloxicam.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.

On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but
included new allegations and named additional officers as
defendants.

On February 8, 2019, Societal CDMO filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed
on April 9, 2019.

On May 9, 2019, the Company filed its response and briefing was
completed on the motion to dismiss. In response to questions from
the Judge, the parties submitted supplemental briefs with regard to
the motion to dismiss the amended complaint during the fall of
2019.

On February 18, 2020, the motion to dismiss was granted without
prejudice.

On April 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
Societal CDMO filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on June 18, 2020.

The plaintiff filed an opposition to Societal CDMO’s motion to
dismiss on August 17, 2020.

On September 16, 2020, Societal CDMO filed a reply in support of
the motion to dismiss.

On March 1, 2021, Societal CDMO’s second motion to dismiss was
denied.

On June 21, 2021, the defendants filed an answer and affirmative
defenses to the second amended complaint. Since then, the parties
have been engaged in discovery, which must conclude by March 15,
2022.

On September 30, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and appointment of class representative. Societal
CDMO filed an opposition to the plaintiff’s motion on November
30, 2021.

On January 6, 2022, the plaintiff filed a reply in support of the
motion for class certification.

In connection with the Separation, we accepted assignment by
Societal CDMO of all of Societal CDMO's obligations in connection
with the Securities Litigation and agreed to indemnify Societal
CDMO for all liabilities related to the Securities Litigation.

On March 24, 2022, plaintiff informed the Court that the parties
had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the Securities
Litigation and requested that the court stay all deadlines.

On May 10, 2022, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

The Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement
and providing for notice on May 12, 2022.

A hearing for final approval of the settlement was held on October
26, 2022, and the parties are awaiting a decision.

Baudax Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: BXRX) a pharmaceutical company, develops
and commercializes products for hospital and other acute care
settings. The company offers ANJESO (meloxicam) injection for the
management of moderate to severe pain, alone or in combination with
non-NSAID analgesics. Its products under development includes
BX1000, an intermediate-acting neuromuscular blocking agent (NMB)
that is in phase II clinical trial; BX2000, an ultra- short acting
NMBA, which is in phase I clinical trial; BX3000, an NMBA reversal
agent; and Dex-IN, a proprietary intranasal formulation of
dexmedetomidine. The company was incorporated in 2019 and is based
in Malvern, Pennsylvania.

BAYER HEALTHCARE: Donadio Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Donadio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-06521
(W.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling
practices with regard to its mix-in powder packets under the
Alka-Seltzer Plus brand promoted as for "Severe Cold & Flu" to be
used in the evenings and containing "Honey and Lemon Zest"
("Product").

The label describes the Product as suitable to be consumed at night
for a "Severe Cold & Flu," identifying the relevant symptoms as
"Nasal Congestion," "Headache," "Sore Throat," "Body Ache,"
"Cough," "Runny Nose" and "Fever," while disclosing its active
ingredients and their functions.

Notwithstanding the front label disclosure of the active
ingredients, the labeling appeals to consumers seeking more natural
OTC products, through the wedge of fresh lemon and a dripping honey
dipper, described as "Honey and Lemon Zest," next to a cup of
steaming tea. Based on the labeling, consumers will expect the
Product contains honey and lemon ingredients, in the form of
"honey" and "lemon zest," the outermost layer of the peel and that
these ingredients provide some therapeutic benefit in addition to
the identified active ingredients. However, the active and inactive
ingredient lists reveal the absence of honey and lemon zest.

Nevertheless, despite the recent growth in the OTC natural products
category, no credible evidence or studies support the notion that
either honey or lemon are effective in treating or reducing the
severity and duration of colds, coughs, and the other symptoms
identified. Though consumers increasingly seek immunity benefits
from OTC products and look for the presence of added vitamin C, no
evidence or studies support a connection between vitamin C and
immunity.

While the label does not explicitly promote added vitamin C,
consumers viewing the lemon wedge and reading "Lemon Zest" will
understand these references as implying the Product contains
vitamin C which will improve their health and immunity. As a result
of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold
for a premium price of not less than $8.99 for six packets,
excluding tax and sales, a higher price than it would otherwise be
sold for, absent the misleading representations and omissions, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product at locations including
Walmart.

Healthcare LLC manufactures, markets, labels and sells mix-in
powder packets under the Alka-Seltzer Plus 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

BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Intrauterine Contraceptives
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a California federal judge has refused to
dismiss a putative class action accusing Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals Inc. of failing to warn that its Mirena
intrauterine contraceptive device can cause breast cancer, ruling
that the plaintiff has adequately alleged breach of implied
warranty.

In a Nov. 22 order, Judge Beth L. Freeman of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with leave
to amend the claims for failure to warn, fraud, violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and unjust enrichment.

Mirena is a hormonal IUD, and specifically a
levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. [GN]


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Alka-Seltzer Plus
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action alleges Alka-Seltzer Plus Severe Night Cold &
Flu Honey Lemon Zest Mix-In Packets are misbranded in that the
medication contains neither honey nor lemon.

The 10-page lawsuit alleges manufacturer Bayer Healthcare has
misled consumers by labeling its over-the-counter Alka-Seltzer
medication as "Honey [and] Lemon Zest," along with images of a
lemon wedge and a honey dipper, since the product's ingredients
list makes no mention of either honey or lemon zest.

According to the case, Bayer Healthcare's alleged
misrepresentations appeal to a growing demand for more natural and
homeopathic over-the-counter cold and cough relief products. The
filing asserts that consumers are increasingly turning away from
traditional items based on the belief that they cause unwanted side
effects and merely suppress symptoms, while natural varieties "work
in concert with the body's healing mechanisms." Younger buyers are
also more likely to pick over-the-counter products "without long
and complicated lists of ingredients, including synthetic
components and additives," the complaint argues.

Based on its labeling, the case contends, consumers assume that the
Alka-Seltzer product's honey and lemon zest ingredients provide
some therapeutic benefit in addition to the identified active
ingredients, such as immune support. The filing relays, however,
that little, if any, evidence exists to support the belief that
honey and lemon are useful in treating a cold and other symptoms.

"Nevertheless, despite the recent growth in the OTC natural
products category, no credible evidence or studies support the
notion that either honey or lemon are effective in treating or
reducing the severity and duration of colds, coughs, and the other
symptoms identified," the filing states.

Additionally, there is no credible evidence that honey or lemon
enhance immunity, the complaint relays.

"As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold for a premium price of not less than $8.99 for six
packets, excluding tax and sales, a higher price than it would
otherwise be sold for, absent the misleading representations and
omissions," the suit says.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in New York, Iowa, Kansas,
New Mexico, Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, West Virginia, Texas,
Montana, Mississippi or Arkansas who purchased the Alka-Seltzer
Plus Severe Night Cold & Flu Honey Lemon Zest Mix-In Packets during
the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]

BCG ATTORNEY: Order on Bids for Class Certification Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY ZERMAY v. BCG
ATTORNEY SEARCH INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-04778-FMO-AFM (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order regarding
motions for class certification as follows:

   1. Joint Brief: The parties shall work cooperatively to
      create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering
      each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue)
      raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing
      party's/parties' response.

   2. Citation to Evidence: All citation to evidence in the
      joint brief shall be 4 directly to the exhibit and page
      number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page and line
      number(s) of a deposition.

   3. Unnecessary Sections: The parties need not include a
      "procedural history" section, since the court will be
      familiar with the procedural history.

   4. Page Limitation: Each separately-represented party shall
      be limited to 25 pages, exclusive of tables of contents
      and authorities.

   5. Evidentiary Appendix: The joint brief shall be accompanied
      by one separate, tabbed appendix of declarations and
      written.

   6. Evidentiary Objections: All necessary evidentiary
      objections shall be made in the relevant section(s) of the
      joint brief. The joint brief shall be accompanied by a
      Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification, and
      shall be calendared pursuant to the Local Rules.

BCG is a legal recruiter placing attorneys across all types of law
firms and practice areas.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3V2QZ9Sat no extra charge.[CC]

BERKELEY LIGHTS: Continues to Defend Ng Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berkeley Lights 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 from the Ng Securities Class Suit.

In December 2021, Victor J. Ng filed a securities class action
complaint (the "Securities Class Action"), which was amended on
July 25, 2022. The Securities Class Action is on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Berkeley Lights
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to certain July 2020 Initial
Public Offering (“IPO”) offering documents and/or (b)
securities of Berkeley Lights between July 17, 2020 and January 5,
2022, inclusive.

The complaint alleges claims under §§10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder as well as §§11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933. It names as defendants the Company, certain of the
Company’s current and former senior executives and directors, the
underwriter firms that sponsored the Company's July 2020 IPO, and
three firms that invested in the Company.

The Company believes that the assertions in the Securities Class
Action are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Berkeley Lights, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The
Company provides technology solutions for single cell manipulation
for biopharma, diagnostics, and life science research. Berkeley
Lights serves customers worldwide.[BN]



BIRD GLOBAL: Faces Arias Suit Over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
MARIO ARIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIRD GLOBAL, INC. f/k/a SWITCHBACK II
CORPORATION; TRAVIS VANDERZANDEN; and YIBO LING, Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-cv-08406 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 17, 2022) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Bird between
May 14, 2021 and November 14, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint the documents filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission were materially false and
misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the
following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operational and financial results, which were known to Defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) Bird was improperly recording Sharing Revenue for certain trips
by its customers where collection was not probable; (2) as such,
Bird overstated its Sharing Revenue for the relevant quarters and
fiscal year during the Class Period; (3) Bird failed to disclose
that its internal controls were not effective as they relate to
calculating Sharing Revenue recognition; (4) as a result, Bird
would need to restate its previously disclosed Sharing Revenue; and
(5) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages. The share prices of Bird plummeted
$0.069 per share, or over 15%, from the prior trading date to close
on November 14, 2022, at $0.364 per share, damaging investors, the
suit added.

BIRD GLOBAL INC is an electric vehicle company focusing on
transportation solutions such as e-scooters and e-bikes to
communities. The Company provides micro electric vehicles to riders
across cities globally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

BLUECREW LLC: Dela Cruz Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Michael Dela Cruz, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
BLUECREW, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; BLUECREW STAFFING,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-22-602240 was
removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County
of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on Nov. 21, 2022, and assigned Case
No. 3:22-cv-07353.

In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action
against Defendants: Unlawful Business Practices, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to
provide required meal periods, failure to provide required rest
periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to pay wages
when due, and failure to pay sick pay wages all in violation of
Labor Codes.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lindsay Hutner, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3668
          Phone: 415.655.1300
          Facsimile: 415.707.2010
          Email: Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel S. Hyde (SBN CA 327065)
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1201 K Street, Suite 1100
          Sacramento, California 95814
          Phone: 916.442.1111
          Facsimile: 916.448.1709
          Email: hydes@gtlaw.com


BOLLA OPERATING: Fails to Pay Clerks' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE A. VASQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. BOLLA OPERATING L.I. CORP. d/b/a/ Bolla
Market and BOLLA OPERATING CORP. d/b/a/ Bolla Market, Case No.
2:22-cv-07014 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2022) seeks to recover minimum
wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Family and Medical Leave Act, the New York Labor Law and supporting
New York State Department of Labor Regulations, and the New York
State Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and current
and former employees of Defendants who worked as clerks in the
State of New York, whose regular rate of pay did not exceed the
statutory minimum wage, and who were not paid an extra hour's pay
at the regular minimum wage for each shift they worked that spanned
more than 10 hours as required by New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations.

Mr. Vasquez worked the night-shift from 7 PM to 7 AM, but was
required to continue working past 7 AM "off the clock" until
employees who worked the day-shift arrived when they reported late
to work. As a result, Mr. Vasquez worked an average of two hours
per week for which he was not paid. Thus, Defendants failed to
properly compensate Mr. Vasquez for all hours worked after 40 hours
in a workweek at a rate not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate in violation of the FLSA and NYLL.

In July 2022, Mr. Vasquez developed an infection in his right foot,
which subsequently required surgical amputation of his toe. He was
able to return to work in October 2022, but he was required to wear
a medical boot that limited and controlled his ankle movement.

After Mr. Vasquez worked a few shifts with his medical boot and
impaired gait, his supervisor allegedly stopped scheduling
Plaintiff for work. Mr. Vasquez supervisor "ghosted" him and failed
to respond to text messages from Plaintiff requesting the location
of his work assignment.

The Defendants refused and/or failed to restore Mr. Vasquez to an
equivalent position in terms of pay, benefits and working
conditions following the amputation of his toe and medical leave of
absence for his serious health condition in violation of the FMLA.
The Defendants discriminated against Mr. Vasquez because of his
disability and/or perceived disability in violation of the NYSHRL,
the suit claims.

As a result of Defendants' discrimination, Mr. Vasquez has
suffered, and will continue to suffer, loss of income and
employment-related benefits, termination of employment, loss of
opportunity for advancement and promotion, emotional pain and
suffering, mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation, added the
suit.

Bolla operates retail gasoline stations and convenience stores in
the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

BRIDGETON, NJ: Code Enforcement Class Action Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for NJ Law Journal, reports that defendant
Borgers Sanders claims in marketing materials that "it can bring
upwards of millions of dollars of new, unanticipated revenue to
your city" from its management of vacant and abandoned property
services.

The city of Bridgeton and an outside consultant that took over some
of its code-enforcement duties have settled a class action suit by
property owners who claimed the arrangement violated their civil
rights.

The settlement returns a pro rata share of fines and fees that were
collected from property owners under the arrangement with Borgers,
Saunders, Taylor and Associates of East Orange. The suit said the
city misused the municipal code as a source of illegal revenue by
charging excessive fines and fees for code enforcement violations
involving vacant and abandoned properties.

Bridgeton will contribute $162,500 toward the settlement, an amount
equal to about 40% of fines collected under the program, which will
be divided among class members after payment is made to a
settlement administrator for costs of administering the settlement.
The settlement also calls for plaintiffs' counsel to receive
$315,000 in fees and expenses, and a $10,000 incentive award will
be paid to the named plaintiffs. In addition, Bridgeton has
repealed its ordinance allowing the arrangement and has ceased
using outside parties to handle code enforcement, according to
court papers.

On Nov. 10, Cumberland County Superior Court Judge James Swift
approved the settlement in the case, PCIII REO v. City of
Bridgeton.

According to the suit, Borgers Saunders claims in marketing
materials that "it can bring upwards of millions of dollars of new,
unanticipated revenue to your city" from its management of vacant
and abandoned property services. The company recommends changes to
a city's ordinances to maximize revenue, then takes over the
functions of enforcement and prosecution, the suit said.

Under this system, the suit says, the municipal prosecutor for
Bridgeton "wholly abandons their role and cedes same" to Borgers
Saunders, directing defendants who receive tickets issued by the
defendant to "work it out" with Borgers Saunders, the suit said.
"The prosecutor's role is largely limited to approving or
'rubber-stamping' plea agreements" negotiated with Borgers
Saunders, the suit said.

Bridgeton's solicitor, Michele Gibson, who represented the city,
its mayor and council and other officials, did not return a call
about the case. Lawyers from Hecht Partners in New York, who
represented Borgers Saunders, also did not respond to requests for
comment.

The plaintiffs, corporations that own property and invest in tax
sale certificates in Bridgeton, were represented by Daniel Haggerty
of Kang Haggerty in Marlton and Philadelphia. Haggerty did not
return calls about the case.

Haggerty also represents the plaintiffs in a similar suit that is
now pending against the city of Burlington and Borgers Saunders.
Burlington entered into an arrangement similar to that which
Bridgeton had with Borgers Saunders, according to court papers.

Other local governments have faced similar suits involving outside
parties that promote their services managing vacant properties. In
2021, an Atlantic County judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs who
sued Atlantic County, three towns and a company called Pro Champs
over a deal giving that company authority to collect fines from
owners of vacant and foreclosed properties.

Borgers Saunders says on its website that a city with 100 to 1,000
abandoned property could see net revenue of $600,000 to $6 million
in two years or less in a city that contracts with it.

"While your entire town, police and fire department will benefit
from a thriving vacant and abandoned property program, we believe
the greatest beneficiaries will be the homeowners who have been
living next door to, or across the street from these abandoned
properties. Not only will property values begin to rise, but as
neighborhoods improve and eye-sore abandoned homes decline, real
estate appraisals for homes in the area will go up," the company
claims. [GN]

BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Financial 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 will continue to defend itself from the Martin Class Action
Suit.

Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit, Lawrence
Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, against Brighthouse
Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life
insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company, a
predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff seeks
to certify a class of similarly situated owners of universal life
insurance policies issued or administered by defendants and alleges
that cost of insurance charges should have decreased over time due
to improving mortality but did not.

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages, attorney's fees,
interest, and equitable relief including a constructive trust.

Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in
June 2021, which was denied in February 2022.

Brighthouse Life Insurance Company of NY was initially named as a
defendant when the lawsuit was filed, but was dismissed as a
defendant, without prejudice, in April 2022.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

Brighthouse Financial, Inc. one of the largest providers of annuity
and life insurance products in the United States through multiple
independent distribution channels and marketing arrangements with a
diverse network of distribution partners. The company is based in
Charlotte, North Carolina.

BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Newton Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Financial 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 will continue to defend itself from the Newton Class Action
Suit in the Northern District Court of Georgia.

Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit, Richard A.
Newton v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, against Brighthouse
Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff was the owner of a universal life
insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company, a
predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company.

Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all persons who own or owned
life insurance policies issued where the terms of the life
insurance policy provide or provided, among other things, a
guarantee that the cost of insurance rates would not be increased
by more than a specified percentage in any contract year.

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of
the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages,
interest and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and
declaratory relief. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a
motion to dismiss in June 2020, which was granted in part and
denied in part in March 2021.

Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint. The Company
intends to vigorously defend this matter.

Brighthouse Financial, Inc. one of the largest providers of annuity
and life insurance products in the United States through multiple
independent distribution channels and marketing arrangements with a
diverse network of distribution partners. The company is based in
Charlotte, North Carolina.

BRITISH ISLES: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed British Isles, Incorporated.
The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. British Isles, Incorporated, Case No.
1:22-cv-09940-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

British Isles -- https://www.britishislesonline.com/ -- offers
British products that bring the quintessence of the United Kingdom
to your home. Shop high quality British food, gifts, toiletries, &
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUCHANAN AUTOMOTIVE: Kennedy Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buchanan Automotive,
Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Kennedy, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Buchanan Automotive, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-01864-MCC (M.D. Pa., Nov. 23, 2022).

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

Buchanan Automotive, Inc. -- https://www.buchananautomotiveinc.com/
-- is a Chevrolet dealer in the Wayne Heights, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ FIRM
          1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (267) 587-6240
          Fax: (215) 689-0875
          Email: eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com

               - and -

          Max Morgan, Esq.
          THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
          1515 Market Street, Suite #1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (267) 587-6240
          Fax: (215) 689-0875
          Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set May 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
Narcity reports that you might find yourself on the receiving end
of some extra money if you paid your mortgage over the last
seventeen years.

A new class action lawsuit has determined that Canadians who paid
their mortgage with CIBC could be entitled to some compensation.

First filed in October 2011, this lawsuit is for Canadians who took
out a CIBC mortgage from 2005 onwards and had to pay a prepayment
charge.

If you're out of the loop, a prepayment charge is what happens when
you pay more of your mortgage than you said you would in your
agreement.

The lawsuit is on the "validity" of the calculation of these
charges, as it has found that many Canadians actually paid more
than they had to.

As a result of this class action, CIBC has agreed to pay a total of
$7.5 million to those who were affected by the miscalculation.

So, if you had a mortgage with CIBC, Firstline Mortgage or
President's Choice Financial —two companies that had connections
to CIBC -- you could eligible for $224, depending on when you took
out your mortgage or mortgage loan.

However, that amount could go down if the amount of claims exceeds
the amount of money available for these claims.

To submit a claim for this class action, you need to go to the
action's website and send it in before May 21, 2023.

Along with your claim, you'll need documentation with the date when
your mortgage was taken out, the length of the mortgage term and
the date it was prepaid.

You might find yourself on the receiving end of some extra money if
you paid your mortgage over the last seventeen years.

A new class action lawsuit has determined that Canadians who paid
their mortgage with CIBC could be entitled to some compensation.

First filed in October 2011, this lawsuit is for Canadians who took
out a CIBC mortgage from 2005 onwards and had to pay a prepayment
charge.

If you're out of the loop, a prepayment charge is what happens when
you pay more of your mortgage than you said you would in your
agreement.

The lawsuit is on the "validity" of the calculation of these
charges, as it has found that many Canadians actually paid more
than they had to.

As a result of this class action, CIBC has agreed to pay a total of
$7.5 million to those who were affected by the miscalculation.

So, if you had a mortgage with CIBC, Firstline Mortgage or
President's Choice Financial -- two companies that had connections
to CIBC -- you could eligible for $224, depending on when you took
out your mortgage or mortgage loan.

However, that amount could go down if the amount of claims exceeds
the amount of money available for these claims.

To submit a claim for this class action, you need to go to the
action's website and send it in before May 21, 2023.

Along with your claim, you'll need documentation with the date when
your mortgage was taken out, the length of the mortgage term and
the date it was prepaid.

This isn't the only class action lawsuit in Canada over the last
few years. If you've used certain credit cards, bought some
electronics or even bought some cars, you could be entitled to some
money. [GN]

CARGILL INC: Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Anticompetitive Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Burl Gilyard at Star Tribune reports that a federal judge has
declined to dismiss an antitrust case against several turkey
suppliers including Minnesota companies Cargill and Hormel Foods
Corp.

The lawsuit alleges that large turkey producers shared
"competitively sensitive information" to limit the supply of
turkeys and fix prices.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall issued her order denying
dismissal of the class action case. The case is being heard in the
federal Northern District of Illinois.

"When the allegations are considered as a whole, plaintiffs' claims
give rise to an inference of a price-fixing conspiracy sufficient
to state a claim and survive the motion to dismiss," Kendall said
in the order.

Representatives of Cargill and Hormel could not be reached for
comment.

The turkey suppliers moved to dismiss the case in March, arguing
that the litigants had failed to establish evidence to support the
price-fixing allegation.

The case has a three-year history so far. The original complaint,
filed in December 2019, named 11 turkey suppliers as defendants,
including well-known names like North Carolina-based Butterball.

The original lead plaintiff was New York-based Olean Wholesale
Grocery Cooperative. The most prominent name among the multiple
plaintiffs is now Florida-based Winn-Dixie Stores, a grocery chain
in the Southeast U.S.

The plaintiffs have argued that the turkey industry is highly
concentrated, dominated by a small number of large producers.

One of the previous defendants, Arkansas-based Tyson Foods, settled
its case for $4.6 million in May 2021.

Kendall's order did dismiss the claims against one defendant,
Prestage Farms, which has operations in five states including Iowa.
[GN]

CARLOTTA CAR: Faces Class Action Over Repossessed Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker at The Times-Tribune reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit alleges an area car dealership violated state
consumer protection law in repossessing vehicles from buyers who
defaulted on loan agreements.

Attorneys for Karen Fabri of Hawley and Tammy Metz of Mahanoy Plane
allege Car Lotta Car Sales LP violated a state law that requires
lenders to pay surplus funds from the resale of repossessed
vehicles to the borrower. They are seeking damages on behalf of
themselves and potentially hundreds of other consumers they say may
have been impacted by the allegedly wrongful practices.

According to the suit, Carlotta Car Sales is a buy-here, pay-here
car dealership with locations at 3374 Scranton-Carbondale Hwy.,
Blakely, and 303 Wyoming Ave., Kingston.

In November 2017, Metz purchased a 2007 Ford Focus for $7,635.80
from an affiliated company, Carlotta Car Sales-H Inc., in Hazleton.
Soon after, she discovered it had frame damage that had not been
disclosed. She returned the car to the dealership under a voluntary
repossession in February 2018. At the time she owed a $7,720.21
balance.

In April 2018, the dealership's Blakely location resold the same
car to Fabri for $8,495, for a surplus of $774.29. Fabri fell
behind on payments due to financial hardship caused by the COVID-19
pandemic, which led the dealership to repossess the car in June
2020.

The suit says the vehicle was then resold to another person, who is
not identified, for at least $7,995. At the time Fabri owed
$1,869.89, which resulted in a surplus of $6,125.11.

The lawsuit, filed by attorneys Carlo Sabatini of Dunmore and Cary
Flitter of Narberth, says state law requires surplus funds be
returned to the debtor, but the dealership failed to return the
funds to Fabri or Metz.

The attorneys seek to classify the case as a class-action lawsuit,
claiming the dealership likely engaged in similar conduct with
hundreds of other buyers.

The suit seeks damages on five counts, including unjust enrichment
and violation of the state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law.

Marianne Gilmartin of Scranton, attorney for the dealership
recently, filed a motion to dismiss the suit. Gilmartin contends
Fabri and Metz signed an agreement that requires any disputes be
submitted to binding arbitration, which means the court does not
have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The motion focuses on the legal jurisdiction issue and does not
address claims that the car was defective or that the dealership's
policies violate consumer protection laws. Attempts to reach
Gilmartin and officials with the car dealership for comment were
unsuccessful.

Contact the writer: tbesecker@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9137;
@tmbeseckerTT on Twitter. [GN]

CAVALIER GALLERY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalier Gallery,
LLC. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Cavalier Gallery, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-09903 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022).

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

Cavalier Gallery -- https://www.cavaliergalleries.com/ -- is an art
gallery in New York City known for its broad selection of
traditional & modern paintings, sculptures & photographs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


CEL TECH CONTRACTING: Anariba Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wan Anariba, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CEL TECH CONTRACTING CORP., a New York limited
liability company, and VISHNU SAMAROO, an individual, Case No.
1:22-cv-07098 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022), is brought for unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and for violations of the
"spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff was paid primarily in cash with no pay stubs
provided. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff any overtime
premium (time and a half) for hours to work over 40 in each work
week. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff that required
spread of ours pay for any date in which he worked 10 hours or
more. The Defendant intentionally, willfully and repeatedly harmed
the Plaintiff by engaging in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of
violating the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to do electrical
installation work on cell phone towers.

The Defendant is a cell phone tower installation company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CELGENE CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Revlimid Drug Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE; MIAMI LODGE 20; INSURANCE TRUST FUND;
and JACKSONVILLE POLICE OFFICERS AND FIRE FIGHTERS HEALTH INSURANCE
TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CELGENE CORPORATION; BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY;
NATCO PHARMA LIMITED; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; LOTUS
PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.; ALVOGEN PINE BROOK, LLC; DR. REDDY’S
LABORATORIES LTD.; DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.; CIPLA LTD.;
APOTEX INC.; ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC.; ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES
LTD. F/K/A CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.; and MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-06694 (D.N.J., Nov. 18, 2022) alleges
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, fair competition would
have limited the price of a 30-day supply of cancer prescription
drug Revlimid to less than $800. The Defendants instead are able to
charge more than $18,000 for the brand version and to sell the
generic version for nearly the same price, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs seeks to stop the Defendants’ blatant violation of
the antitrust law which allowed them to charge more than 22 times
the competitive price for Revlimid and, unless the Court enjoins
their ongoing unlawful conduct, to steal more than $30 billion from
Revlimid purchasers.

CELGENE CORPORATION is a global biopharmaceutical company. The
Company focuses on the discovery, development, and
commercialization of therapies designed to treat cancer and
immune-inflammatory related diseases. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          2 Hudson Place, Suite 100
          Hoboken, NJ 07030
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: jcshah@millershah.com
                 nfinkelman@millershah.com

               - and -

          Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
          HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
          1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125
          Austin, TX 78703
          Telephone: (855) 344-3298
          Email: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

CENTRAL COVENTRY: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Almagno Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Central Coventry Fire District filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled JAMES ALMAGNO, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees of
the CENTRAL COVENTRY FIRE DISTRICT, v. CENTRAL COVENTRY FIRE
DISTRICT, Case No. 1:20-cv-00440-JJM-LDA, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Rhode Island, Providence.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class action
complaint, filed on October 15, 2020, is brought for declaratory
judgment, overtime pay, liquidated damages and other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendant's willful
violations of the FLSA include intentionally failing and refusing
to pay all compensation due the Plaintiff under the FLSA and its
implementing regulations, the complaint says.

On April 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment which the Court granted on August 19, 2022 through an
Order signed by Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. On September 30,
2022, Judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiffs.

The Defendant seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Almagno, et al. v. Central
Coventry Fire District, Case No. 22-1876, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on Nov. 15, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appearance
form, Docketing Statement, and Transcript Report/Order form were
due November 29, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant CENTRAL COVENTRY FIRE DISTRICT is represented
by:

          David M. D'Agostino, Esq.
          GORHAM & GORHAM INC
          25 Danielson Pike PO Box 46
          North Scituate, RI 02857-0000
          Telephone: (401) 647-1400

Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMES ALMAGNO, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated current and former employees of the Central
Coventry Fire District, et al., are represented by:

          Elizabeth Wiens, Esq.
          GURSKY/WIENS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LTD.
          1130 Ten Rod Rd Ste C207
          North Kingstown, RI 02852
          Telephone: (401) 294-4700

CHARLES A WALBURG: Contreras Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Contreras, Clifford Duviela, and Norberto Alex Marte, on
behalf of themselves, and other similarly situated employees v.
CHARLES A WALBURG MULTI-SERVICE ORGANIZATION INC., dba CENTRAL
HARLEM MEALS ON WHEELS, and CARLA D. BROWN, individually, Case No.
1:22-cv-09971 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2022), is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, they are entitled to recover from the
Defendants: unpaid wages and overtime compensation; liquidated
damages and statutory penalties pursuant to the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Throughout the Plaintiffs' employment by the Defendants, they were
not paid for all hours worked, and often worked over 40 hours per
week but did not receive overtime compensation. During the
Plaintiffs' employment, they were paid by check and their wage
statement did not specify the number of hours he worked on a weekly
basis. Work performed above 40 hours per week was not paid at time
and one half the Plaintiffs regular rate as required by law. The
Defendants knowingly and willfully operated the business with a
policy of not paying either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and
one-half) or the New York State overtime rate (of time and
one-half) to the Plaintiff for work performed over 40 hours in a
workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendant Meals on Wheels, to work
as truck loaders, drivers or food delivery persons.

Charles A Walburg Multi-Service Organization Inc., dba Central
Harlem Meals on Wheels, was and is a domestic not-for-profit
corporation, existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          60 East 42nd Street – 40th Floor
          New York, New York 10165
          Phone: (212) 209-3933
          Fax: (212) 209-7102
          Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Jeziorkowski, Esq.
          VALIANT LAW
          75 S. Broadway – Suite 400
          White Plains, New York 10601
          Phone: (914) 595-6702
          Fax: (909) 677-2290


CHEWY INC: Licea Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jose Licea, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Chewy, Inc., Does 1 through 10
inclusive, Case No. 37-02022-00042310-CU-MT-CTL was removed from
the Superior Court of California, San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on Nov. 23, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01852-AJB-DEB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Right to Privacy
Act.

Chewy, Inc. -- https://www.chewy.com/ -- is an American online
retailer of pet food and other pet-related products based in Dania
Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                 vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 612-2500
          Fax: (213) 612-2501
          Email: megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com

CLARIVATE PLC: Continues to Defend Three Securities Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clarivate PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Company continues
to defend itself from three Securities Class Suits.

Between January and March 2022, three putative securities class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York against Clarivate and certain
of its executives and directors alleging that there were weaknesses
in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting and
financial reporting procedures that it failed to disclose in
violation of federal securities law.

The complaints were consolidated into a single proceeding on May
18, 2022.

On August 8, 2022, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, seeking damages on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who acquired Clarivate securities between July 30,
2020 and February 2, 2022, and/or acquired Clarivate common or
preferred shares in connection with offerings on June 10, 2021, or
Clarivate common shares in connection with a September 13, 2021
offering.

The amended complaint, like the prior complaints, references an
error in the accounting treatment of an equity plan included in the
Company's 2020 business combination with CPA Global that was
disclosed on December 27, 2021, and related restatements issued on
February 3, 2022 of certain of the Company's previously issued
financial statements; the amended complaint also alleges that the
Company and certain of its executives and directors made false or
misleading statements relating to the Company's product quality and
expected organic revenues and organic growth rate, and that they
failed to disclose significant known changes to the Company's
business model. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint
on October 7, 2022.

On June 7, 2022, a class action was filed in Pennsylvania state
court in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia asserting claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, based on substantially similar
allegations, with respect to alleged misstatements and omissions in
the offering documents for two issuances of Clarivate ordinary
shares in June and September 2021.

The Company moved to stay this proceeding on August 19, 2022 and
filed its preliminary objections to the state court complaint on
October 21, 2022.

Clarivate does not believe that the claims alleged in the
complaints have merit and will vigorously defend against them.
Given the early stage of the proceedings, we are unable to estimate
the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, arising from
these matters.

Clarivate is a global information services and analytics company
serving the scientific research, intellectual property, and life
sciences end-markets.[BN]


CLEVELAND AVE: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Reply by Dec. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA HOGAN, et al., v.
CLEVELAND AVE RESTAURANT, INC., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-02883-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A.
Preston Deavers entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for extension of time to file reply memorandum as follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs shall have until         Dec. 6, 2022
      to file a Reply in support of
      their Motion for Class:
      Certification.

Cleveland Ave Restaurant Inc is in the Sandwiches and Submarines
Shop business.

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

CLUTCH CORP: Nunez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
Yugely Nunez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CLUTCH CORP., Case No. 534040/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Kings Cty., Nov. 21, 2022), is brought to challenge the Defendant's
discriminatory business practices for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and
equally accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people who use screen-reading
software

Specifically, the Defendant's Website contained access barriers
that prevented Plaintiff and other visually impaired and/or legally
blind individuals from purchasing products thereon. The Defendant
and its and its Website--which is not equally accessible to blind
and/or visually impaired consumers--violate the following: the New
York State Human Rights Law; the New York State Civil Rights Law;
and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff brings this
action in both an individual capacity and on the behalf of other
similarly situated blind and/or visually impaired people who sought
to purchase the goods and products that Defendant sells thereon
during the past three years from the date of the filing of the
complaint, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired, handicapped person.

The Defendant is an online retail company, who owns and/or operates
anodynecoffee.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          Daniela Mendes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212/595-6200
          Fax: 212/595-9700
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
                 dmendes@mizrahikroub.com


COCA-COLA CO: Barnes Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Coca-Cola Co. The
case is styled as Keith Barnes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Coca-Cola Co., Case No.
1:22-cv-01511-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2022).

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

The Coca-Cola Company -- https://www.coca-colacompany.com/ -- is an
American multinational beverage corporation founded in 1892, best
known as the producer of Coca-Cola.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSON & FISHER, P.A. (NY)
          701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Fax: (305) 676-9006
          Email: scott@bursor.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Fax: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 ndeckant@bursor.com


COLORADO DOC: Hastings Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
William Hastings, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SHERRIE DAIGLE,
in her official capacity; DEAN WILLIAMS, in his official capacity,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03025 (D. Colo., Nov. 21, 2022), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 against the Defendant who
failed to pay overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the FLSA, by
failing to pay Criminal Investigators overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 in any single workweek. Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to properly compensate
Criminal Investigators for time during which they were on call in
the course and scope of their employment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a Criminal
Investigator from August 1, 2016 through the present.

The Colorado Department of Corrections is the State of Colorado's
department operating the State's prisons and, through the DOC's
Division of Inspector General, investigates security, safety, and
criminal matters within the State's correctional facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
          Casey J. Leier, Esq.
          Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
          LEVENTHAL | LEWIS KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC
          3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 710
          Denver, CO 80209
          Phone: (720) 699-3000
          Email: mkuhn@ll.law
                 cleier@ll.law
                 aswan@ll.law


COLUMBIA RECYCLING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De La Fuente Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
OSVALDO DE LA FUENTE; and VICTOR HUGO TAPIA ROMERO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
COLUMBIA RECYCLING CORP.; and GOLD POND CORP., Defendants, Case No.
4:22-cv-00256-WMR (N.D. Ga., Nov. 18, 2022) alleges violations of
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and class
action claims (a) for Defendants' violations of the terms of
Plaintiffs' and other TN visa holders' employment contracts and (b)
for Defendants' filing of false information returns with the U.S.
Internal Revenue Service.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as engineers.

COLUMBIA RECYCLING CORP. was founded in 1971. The Company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of textile goods, including
linen goods, felt goods, padding, and upholstery filling. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Werner, Esq.
          James Radford, Esq.
          RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
          315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (678) 271-0300
          Email: dan@decaturlegal.com
                 james@decaturlegal.com

               - and -

          Chris B. Hall, Esq.
          Brian J. Sutherland, Esq.
          Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq.
          HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
          300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 876-8100
          Email: chall@hallandlampros.com
                 brian@hallandlampros.com
                 rachel@hallandlampros.com

COWBOY BRAZILIAN: Firestone Sues Over Illegal Retention of Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY FIRESTONE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COWBOY BRAZILIAN STEAKHOUSE, LLC,
and ARMELINDO CONTE, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-04020-BHH (D.S.C., November 11, 2022) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from October 2021 to
October 2022 as a Gaucho, whose primary job responsibilities
included bringing cuts of beef, lamb, chicken, and pork to guests
on a skewer and slicing it at their table.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated Gauchos and Servers to provide
portions of their tips to the Defendants. The Defendants allegedly
breached its employment agreement with its Gauchos and Serves that
is to pay them hourly rate plus tips. As a result of the
Defendant's unlawful taking of the "tip credit," the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated Gauchos and Servers were compensated less
than the statutory minimum wage.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover his and other
similarly situated Gauchos and Servers unpaid minimum wages and
un-received tips, as well as liquidated damages in an equal amount
to the award of compensatory damages, treble damages pursuant to
the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs incurred in bringing this action, restitution of wages
and gratuities improperly retained, and other relief as the Court
deems just and equitable.

Cowboy Brazilian Steakhouse, LLC is a restaurant that offers a
salad bar with over 30 items, including hot Brazilian dishes as
well as prime cuts of beef, lamb, chicken and pork carved
tableside. Armelindo Conte is the owner and manager of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          652 Rutledge Ave., Suite A
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Tel: (843) 588-5587
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

CREDENCE RESOURCE: Henriquez Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER HENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDENCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LLC,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-017168 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Nov.
18, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

CREDENCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LLC is a first- and third-party
accounts receivable management company and debt collection agency.
It serves the healthcare, telecommunication, insurance, utility,
retail, and financial services markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  jen@jibraellaw.com

CREDIT ADJUSTMENT: Smay Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Credit Adjustment
Incorporated. The case is styled as Teresa Smay, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Adjustment
Incorporated, Case No. 2:22-cv-01988-DWL (D. Ariz., Nov. 22,
2022).

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

Credit Adjustment Incorporated --
https://www.creditadjustmentboard.com/ -- is Virginia's leading
Medical billing and accounts receivable management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CREDIT COLLECTION: Friedman Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Credit Collection Services.
The case is styled as Blimie Friedman, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Credit Collection Services,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06735-ZNQ-TJB (D.N.J., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is a
nationally licensed provider of customized, performance-driven
receivables management services that was founded in 1989.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CREDIT CONTROL: Wilkerson Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Corinne Wilkerson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Credit Control Services, Inc. doing business as: Credit Collection
Services, Case No. 2:22-cv-08588-DSF-JEM (C.D. Cal., Nov. 23,
2022).

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

Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is a
nationally licensed provider of customized, performance-driven
receivables management services that was founded in 1989.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Youssef Hussein Hammoud, Esq.
          HAMMOND LAW PC
          3744 East Chapman Avenue No F12269
          Orange, CA 92859
          Phone: (949) 301-9692
          Fax: (949) 301-9693
          Email: yh@lawhammoud.com


CROCS INC: Esparza Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Miguel Esparza, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Crocs, Inc., Does 1 through 210
inclusive, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on Nov. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01842-BEN-MDD to
the proceeding.

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

Crocs, Inc. -- http://www.crocs.com/-- is an American footwear
company based in Broomfield, Colorado, that manufactures and
markets the Crocs brand of foam clogs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                 vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rebecca J. Wahlquist, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 547-4916
          Fax: (213) 547-4901
          Email: bwahlquist@kelleydrye.com


CRONOS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Shareholders Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cronos 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 7, 2022, that the
Company's motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action
complaint filed by two shareholders against Cronos and its former
Chief Executive Officer (now Executive Chairman) and Chief
Financial Officer is still pending.

On March 11 and 12, 2020, two alleged shareholders of the Company
separately filed two putative class action complaints in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company and its Chief Executive Officer and now former Chief
Financial Officer.

The court has consolidated the cases, and the consolidated amended
complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against the individual defendants.

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that certain
of the Company's prior public statements about revenues and
internal control were incorrect based on the Company's disclosures
relating to the Audit Committee of the Board's review of the
appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain
bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale
channel. The consolidated amended complaint does not quantify a
damage request.

Defendants moved to dismiss on February 8, 2021.

Cronos Group Inc. is a Toronto-based company into medicinal
chemicals and botanical products.

CRONOS GROUP: Ontario Appeals Court Overturns Cert. Bid Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cronos 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 7, 2022, that the
Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed a lower court's dismissal of
leave and certification motions filed by a shareholder of the
Company, and granted the plaintiff leave to proceed to bring a
claim for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act, and
remitted the certification motion back to the Superior Court.

On June 3, 2020, an alleged shareholder filed a Statement of Claim,
as amended on August 12, 2020, in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, seeking, among other things,
an order certifying the action as a class action on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders and damages of an unspecified
amount. The Amended Statement of Claim names (i) the Company, (ii)
its Chief Executive Officer, (iii) now former Chief Financial
Officer, (iv) former Chief Financial Officer and Chief Commercial
Officer, and (v) current and former members of the Board as
defendants and alleges breaches of the Ontario Securities Act,
oppression under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and common
law misrepresentation. The Amended Statement of Claim generally
alleges that certain of the Company's prior public statements about
revenues and internal control were misrepresentations based on the
Company's March 2, 2020 disclosure that the Audit Committee of the
Board was conducting a review of the appropriateness of revenue
recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and
sales of products through the wholesale channel, and the Company's
subsequent restatement. The Amended Statement of Claim does not
quantify a damage request.

On June 28, 2021, the Court dismissed motions brought by the
plaintiff for leave to commence a claim for misrepresentation under
the Ontario Securities Act and for certification of the action as a
class action. The plaintiff appealed the Court's dismissal of the
motions only with respect to the Company, the Chief Executive
Officer, and the now former Chief Financial Officer; the remaining
defendants were dismissed from the matter with prejudice, and the
Company and all individual defendants agreed not to seek costs from
plaintiff in connection with the dismissal of the motions.

On September 26, 2022, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the
Superior Court's dismissal of the leave and certification motions,
granted the plaintiff leave to proceed to bring a claim for
misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act, and remitted
the certification motion back to the Superior Court.

Cronos Group Inc. is a Toronto-based company into
medicinalchemicals and botanical products.


CURB MOBILITY: Faces Zakheim Suit Over Undisclosed Service Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL M. ZAKHEIM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly v. CURB MOBILITY, LLC, TAXI BUTLER B.V. d/b/a VENUE
BUTLER, and YAIKS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-04594 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 16,
2022) is a class action lawsuit involving riders who were illegally
charged a service fee that was never disclosed to them and that
they never consented to, on taxi rides that originate from pressing
the Venue Butler button.

On August 18, 2022, Mr. Zakheim went to the lobby of his hotel on
Broad Street in downtown Center City, Philadelphia, and asked the
clerk to call him a taxi. Accordingly, when Mr. Zakheim arrived at
his destination, the fare on the screen was $6.80, and he elected
to tip $2.00, making a grand total of $8.80 due and owing. He paid
by credit card using the merchant processing machine connected to
the screen inside the taxi. After the transaction was complete, Mr.
Zakheim requested a paper copy of his receipt, which reflected an
undisclosed service fee of $2.50 and a grand total charge of
$11.30, says the suit.

Mr. Zakheim brings this action to recoup his losses and those of
putative Class members against Defendants for conversion, unjust
enrichment and for violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law as well as other similar
statutes nationwide.

Curb Mobility provides taxi technology and creative out-of-home
media solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          Richard Golomb, Esq.
          Kevin W. Fay, Esq.
          GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD PC
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          E-mail: rgolomb@GolombLegal.Com
                  KGrunfeld@GolombLegal.Com
                  kfay@golomblegal.com

                - and -

          David L. Woloshin, Esq.
          Dina S. Ronsayro, Esq.
          Jordan Schlossberg, Esq.
          Jonathan Zakheim, Esq.
          ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP
          200 South Broad Street, Suite 600
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 790-0100
          Facsimile: (215) 790-0509
          E-Mail: DWoloshin@astorweiss.com
                  DRonsayro@astorweiss.com
                  JSchlossberg@astorweiss.com
                  JZakheim@astorweiss.com

CVR REFINING: Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 16
-----------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE CVR REFINING, LP
UNITHOLDER LITIGATION

CONSOLIDATED

C.A. No. 2019-0062-KSJM
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF UNITHOLDER CLASS ACTION,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

To: Any natural person or entity who held CVR Refining, LP limited
partnership units on January 29, 2019 and whose units were
purchased on that date by CVR Energy, Inc. (the "Class Units"), in
their capacities as holders of Class Units, together with their
heirs, assigns, transferees, and successors-in-interest, in each
case in their capacity as holders of Class Units (the "Class").

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Unitholder Class Action, Settlement Hearing,
and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at
www.CVRRefiningUnitholderLitigation.com.  Any capitalized terms
used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this
Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release
dated August 19, 2022 (the "Stipulation"), which is also available
at www.CVRRefiningUnitholderLitigation.com.

PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned unitholder class action (the "Action") has been
certified as a class action on behalf of the Class defined above.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) Lead Plaintiff Bharat H. Barai, MD
and plaintiff Bharat H. Barai, MD & Panna B. Barai, MD TRS FBO
Suniti Medical Corporation MPP & Trust UA 11/30/87 (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the other members of the
Court-certified Class; and (ii) defendants CVR Refining, LP, CVR
Refining GP, LLC, CVR Energy, Inc., Carl Icahn, and Icahn
Enterprises, L.P. (collectively, "Defendants") have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $78,500,000 in cash (the
"Settlement").  The terms of the Settlement are stated in the
Stipulation entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendants.  If
approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in
the Action.

A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on December 16,
2022, at 11:00 a.m., before The Honorable Kathaleen S. McCormick,
Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or by telephone
or video conference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among
other things: (i)  determine whether the proposed Settlement on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by
the Court; (ii) determine whether the Judgment, substantially in
the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be
entered dismissing the Action with prejudice as against Defendants;
(iii) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net
Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be
approved; (iv) determine whether the application by Co-Lead Counsel
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, including Lead
Plaintiff's application for an incentive award, should be approved;
(v) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed
Plan of Allocation, and/or the application by Co-Lead Counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, including Lead
Plaintiff's application for an incentive award; and (vi) consider
any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in
connection with the Settlement.

Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes
to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person
or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the
Settlement website, www.CVRRefiningUnitholderLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the
Settlement Administrator at In re CVR Refining, LP Unitholder
Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173127, Milwaukee, WI
53217, 877-388-1718, info@CVRRefiningUnitholderLitigation.com.  A
copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement
website, www.CVRRefiningUnitholderLitigation.com.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court.  Pursuant to the proposed
Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to
receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to
the product of (i) the number of Class Units held by the Eligible
Class Member at the time such Class Units were purchased by CVR
Energy, Inc. on January 29, 2019 for the Acquisition Consideration
and (ii) the "Per-Unit Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be
determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund
by the total number of Class Units held by all of the Eligible
Class Members at the time such Class Units were purchased by CVR
Energy, Inc. on January 29, 2019 for the Acquisition Consideration.
As explained in further detail in the Notice at paragraphs 35-44,
pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from the Net
Settlement Fund to eligible Class Members will be made in the same
manner in which eligible Class Members received the Acquisition
Consideration.  Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a
claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award
attorneys' fees and expenses, including Lead Plaintiff's
application for an incentive award, must be filed with the Register
in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and
delivered to Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than December 2, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Summary Notice.  All questions about this
Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement
Administrator or Co-Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:

In re CVR Refining, LP Unitholder Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173127
Milwaukee, WI  53217
877-388-1718
info@CVRRefiningUnitholderLitigation.com
www.CVRRefiningUnitholderLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Co-Lead Counsel:

Mark Lebovitch
Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
44th Floor
New York, New York 10020
800‑380‑8496
settlements@blbglaw.com

Jeffrey M. Gorris
Friedlander & Gorris, P.A.
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
302-573-3500
jgorris@friedlandergorris.com

Lawrence Deutsch
Berger Montague PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
215-875-3062
ldeutsch@bm.net

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE


DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Faces Rosencrants Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Danimer Scientific 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 all Defendants
except the Company are dismissed from Rosencrants Class Action.

On May 14, 2021, a class action complaint was filed by Darryl Keith
Rosencrants in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, on May 18, 2021, a class action complaint was
filed by Carlos Caballeros in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia, on May 18, 2021, a class action
complaint was filed by Dennis H. Wilkins also in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, and on May 19,
2021, a class action complaint was filed by Elizabeth and John
Skistimas in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. Each plaintiff or plaintiffs brought the
action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
against the Company.

The alleged class varies in each case but covers all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
our securities between October 5, 2020 and May 4, 2021 ("Class
Period"). Plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
are pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("Exchange Act"), and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints are substantially
similar and are each premised upon various allegations that
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding, among other things, our business,
operations and compliance policies.

Plaintiffs seek the following remedies: (i) determining that the
lawsuits may be maintained as class actions under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (ii) certifying a class
representative, (iii) requiring Defendants to pay damages allegedly
sustained by plaintiffs and the class members by reason of the acts
alleged in the complaints, and (iv) awarding pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest as well as reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs.

On July 29, 2021, the Georgia court transferred the Georgia cases
to New York, and all four class actions have been consolidated into
a single lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York.

On January 19, 2022, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
(“Amended Complaint”) was filed in the Eastern District of New
York, naming as defendants the Company, its directors and certain
of its officers as well as certain former directors (collectively,
"Defendants").

The Amended Complaint is brought on behalf of a class consisting of
(i) purchasers of shares of the Company during the Class Period,
(ii) all holders of the Company's Class A common stock entitled to
vote on the merger transaction between the Company and Meredian
Holdings Group, Inc. consummated on December 28, 2020 and (iii)
purchasers of Company securities pursuant to the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-4 that was declared effective on
December 16, 2020 or the Company's Registration Statement on Form
S-1 that was declared effective on February 16, 2021.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections
10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10(b)-5(a)-(c)
promulgated thereunder and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"). Plaintiffs seek the
following remedies: (a) a determination that the lawsuit is a
proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and certifying Plaintiffs as class representative,
(b) awarding compensatory and punitive damages allegedly sustained
by the class members by reason of the acts set forth in the Amended
Complaint and (c) awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
and costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
experts' fees and other costs.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
May 20, 2022. Plaintiffs served their opposition papers to the
motion to dismiss on July 21, 2022, and Defendants filed a reply on
September 6, 2022.

The court has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss. In their
opposition papers, Plaintiffs have now confirmed that, based on
Defendants' arguments in the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs have
dropped seven of the nine counts, eliminating all of the Securities
Act counts specifically relating to the proxy solicitation,
registration statements and related control person claims, and all
that now remains are the first two counts under Rules
10(b)-5(a)-(c) of the Exchange Act and control person liability.

Additionally, all of the Defendants other than Danimer and three of
its current or former officers or directors have been dismissed
from the case.

Danimer Scientific, Inc. is a performance polymer company
specializing in bioplastic replacement for traditional
petroleum-based plastics. The company is based in Bainbridge,
Georgia.


DC WINERY: Seeks More Time to File Opposition to Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDAN HARRINGTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DC
Winery LLC, d/b/a First Batch Hospitality; Brian Leventhal; and
John Stires, individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-00689-TSC (D.D.C.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time in
which to file an Opposition to Plaintiff's pending Motion for
Conditional Certification and Notice, with the understanding that
Plaintiff does not intend to oppose this Motion.

On November 9, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional
Certification and Notice of his purported class in this matter.

The Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification and Notice is currently due on November 23, 2022, in
accordance with Local Rule 7(b).

The Defendants seek to extend their time to file an Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice by one
weeks, to November 30, 2022.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3V2HbwDat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michelle Cassorla, Esq.
          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St. Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          E-mail: mcassorla@llrlaw.com
                  hlichten@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          Allison H. Peregory, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          E-mail: drew@hermannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmanlaw.com
                  aperegory@herrmanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew F. Nieman, Esq.
          Andrew J. Bellwoar, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          10701 Parkridge Blvd., Ste. 300
          Reston, VA 20191
          Telephone: (703) 483-8300
          Facsimile: (703) 483-8301
          E-mail: Matthew.Nieman@JacksonLewis.com
                  Andrew.Bellwoar@JacksonLewis.com

DELIVERY DRIVERS: Shelton Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Sheri Shelton, an individual; on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. DELIVERY DRIVERS,
INC.; WALMART, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
30-2022-01272850-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on Nov. 23,
2022, and assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02135.

The Plaintiff brings claims for the Defendants' alleged failure to
pay minimum and overtime wages at the correct rates of pay, provide
meal periods and rest periods, reimburse business expenses, furnish
timely and accurate wage statements, and timely pay all wages due
upon separation. The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants
committed acts of unfair competition as defined by the California
Unfair Business Practices Act. Finally, the Plaintiff brings a
cause of action for civil penalties under the California Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") based on the Labor Code violations
she alleges. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff states that her claims
arise from the Defendants' alleged "misclassification of its
delivery drivers as independent contractors" rather than
employees.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Scott Voelz, Esq.
          Allison N. Bader, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Phone: +1 213 430 6000
          Facsimile: +1 213 430 6407
          Email: svoelz@omm.com
                 abader@omm.com


DELTA STAR: Hernandez Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Isaac Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of
aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA") v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive; Case No. 22-CIV-04380 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Nov. 21, 2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-07354.

The Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action for civil penalties
under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (the
"PAGA"), alleging failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay
overtime wages; failure to provide meal breaks; failure to provide
rest breaks; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure
to timely pay wages upon termination; failure to provide complete
and accurate wage statements; failure to provide paid sick days;
and failure to reimburse business expenses.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq.
          Olga Savage, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          1999 Harrison St., Suite 700
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: 510.768.0650
          Facsimile: 510.768.0651
          Email: tyler.paetkau@huschblackwell.com
                 olga.savage@huschblackwell.com


DESIGNER BRANDS: Joint Briefing Schedule Entered in Laguardia
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC LAGUARDIA, et al. v.
DESIGNER BRANDS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02311-SDM-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order
granting the joint proposed briefing schedule as follows:

   1. DSW's opposition to Plaintiffs'        Jan. 17, 2023
      motion for class certification
      shall be filed on or before:

   2. The Plaintiffs' opposition to          Jan. 17, 2023
      DSW's motion for summary
      judgment shall be filed on or
      before:

   3. The Plaintiffs' reply in support       Feb. 16, 2023
      of their motion for class
      certification shall be filed on
      or before

   4. DSW's reply in support of its          Feb. 16, 2023
      motion for summary judgment shall
      be filed on or before:

Designer Brands engages in the design, production, and retail of
footwear and accessory brands.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XxqU48at no extra charge.[CC]

DEUTSCHE BANK: Sued Over Negligent Acts and Omissions
-----------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Deutsche Bank AG New
York Branch, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Case No.
1:22-cv-10018 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2022), is brought for damages and
other relief under (among other provisions of law) the United
States federal anti-sex trafficking statute, the Trafficking Victim
Protection Act ("TVPA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), as well as for intentional and
negligent acts and omissions under the New York Adult Survivors
Act.

The suit arises from Defendants Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft's,
Deutsche Bank AG New York Branch's, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas' (hereinafter referred to collected as "Deutsche Bank"),
participating in and financially benefitting from participating in
Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking by providing the requisite
financial support for the continued operation of Epstein's
international sex trafficking organization.

Deutsche Bank knowingly benefited and received things of value for
assisting, supporting, facilitating, and otherwise providing the
most critical service for the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking
organization to successfully rape, sexually assault, and coercively
sex traffic Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 and the numerous other members of
the Class. Deutsche Bank knew that Epstein was regularly committing
violations of New York Penal Law Art, including and especially New
York Penal, and acted in a negligent manner so as to enable Epstein
to commit such offenses against countless young women.

Deutsche Bank also knew that Epstein would use means of force,
threats of force, fraud, abuse of legal process, exploitation of
power disparity, and a variety of other forms of coercion to cause
young women and girls to engage in commercial sex acts. Deutsche
Bank also engaged in repeated acts of racketeering activity to
support the Epstein organization. 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. Specifically, Deutsche Bank chose
facilitating a sex trafficking operation in order to churn profits,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 is using a pseudonym to protect her
identity because of the sensitive and highly personal nature of
this matter, which involves sexual assault.

Deutsche Bank AG is a global financial institution headquartered in
Frankfurt, Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley J. Edwards, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC
          425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954)-524-2820
          Fax: (954)-524-2822
          Email: brad@epllc.com

               - and -

          Brittany N. Henderson, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER
          1501 Broadway, Floor 12
          New York, New York
          Phone: (954)-524-2820
          Fax: (954)-524-2822
          Email: brittany@epllc.com

               - and -

          Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
          S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
          383 S. University St.
          Salt Lake City, UT 84112
          Phone: 801-585-5202
          Facsimile: 801-585-6833
          Email: pgcassell.law@gmail.com

               - and -

          David Boies, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, New York
          Phone: (212) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
          Email: dboies@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Phone: (954) 356-0011
          Facsimile: (954) 356-0022
          Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com

DINING INNOVATION: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dining Innovation New
York, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Dining Innovation New
York, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07108 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022).

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

Dining Innovation New York, Inc. -- https://dining-innovation.com/
-- is in the Family Restaurants business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DYNAMIC COLOR IMAGES: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Color Images,
Inc. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Dynamic Color Images, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-09945-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Dynamic Color Images, Inc. -- https://dynamiccolor.com/ -- has been
providing the highest quality tattoo ink since 1990.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EAH COMMUNITY: Villa Sues Over Failure to Pay All Hours Worked
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mauricio Arroyo Villa, individually and on behalf of Themselves and
all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. EAH
COMMUNITY HOUSING, INC., AND ISAURA GUERRERO, Case No.
5:22-cv-07358 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2022), is brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, California Labor Code, and
the Unfair Competition Law to secure declaratory relief and damages
to remedy the Defendants' violations of federal, state, and local
employment laws by failing to adequately compensate Plaintiff for
the hours he worked.

During his employment, despite working 8 hours per day, 6 days per
week, the Plaintiff was not paid the minimum wages required by law
including cash wages, for the hours he worked. The Defendants
required the Plaintiff, a non-exempt employee, to work at rates,
that are below the state and federal minimum wage. The Defendants
willfully, intentionally, and with reckless disregard denied the
Plaintiff all the wages to which s/he was entitled under the FLSA,
state law, and/or any local ordinance, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as residential maintenance
employee from April 2016 to August 8, 2022.

EAH COMMUNITY HOUSING, INC. is a limited liability company doing
business in California who provides administrative and maintenance
services to residential properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Dore, Esq.
          JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski Rd. Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Phone: (773) 415-4898
          Email: jdore@justicialaboral.com


EARGO INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit on Dec 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eargo, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for quarterly period
ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2022, that a hearing on a motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit styled In re Eargo,
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 21-cv-08597-CRB is currently
scheduled for December 16, 2022.

On October 6, 2021, putative shareholder Joseph Fazio filed a
purported securities class action against the Company and certain
of its officers, captioned Fazio v. Eargo, Inc., et al., No.
21-cv-07848 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021) (the "Fazio Action").

Plaintiff Fazio alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures
about its business, operations, and prospects, including
reimbursements from third-party payors, violated federal securities
laws. Fazio voluntarily dismissed his complaint on December 6,
2021.

On November 4, 2021, putative shareholder Alden Chung filed a
purported class action lawsuit substantially similar to the Fazio
Action, captioned Chung v. Eargo, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-08597
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2021) (the "Chung Action").

On November 10, 2021, putative shareholder IBEW Local 353 Pension
Plan filed a purported class action substantially similar to the
Fazio and Chung Actions and also asserting claims under the federal
securities laws against current and former members of the Company's
Board of Directors (the "Board of Directors") and the underwriters
of the Company's October 15, 2020 initial public offering of common
stock, captioned IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan v. Eargo, Inc., et
al., No. 21-cv-08747 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021) (the "IBEW Action").


These class actions, which seek damages and other relief, were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California. The Fazio and Chung Actions were brought purportedly
on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Eargo securities between February 25, 2021 and September
22, 2021. The IBEW Local 353 Action was brought purportedly on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired:
(i) Eargo shares in or traceable to the Company's October 15, 2020
initial public offering of common stock; and/or (ii) shares of
Eargo common stock between October 15, 2020 and September 22, 2021.


On January 5, 2022, the court consolidated the foregoing class
actions (as consolidated, the "Securities Class Action") under the
caption In re Eargo, Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
21-cv-08597-CRB, and appointed IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan and
Xiaobin Cai as Lead Plaintiffs and Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP and Block & Leviton LLP as Lead Counsel.

On May 20, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which purports to extend the class period through March
2, 2022. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 29, 2022.

On September 7, 2022, plaintiffs filed their opposition, and on
October 7, 2022, Defendants filed their reply brief in support of
their motion to dismiss.

A hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss is currently scheduled
for December 16, 2022.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the Securities Class
Action and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss
that may arise from the litigation. Accordingly, the Company can
provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of this matter and
no assurance as to whether its business, financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows will not be materially
adversely affected.

Eargo is an American hearing aid manufacturer based in San Jose,
California.

EASTERSEALS-GOODWILL: Kilgore Files Suit in D. Utah
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Easterseals-Goodwill
Northern Rocky Mountain, Inc. The case is styled as Jamie Kilgore,
B. E., individually on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Easterseals-Goodwill Northern Rocky Mountain,
Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00728 (D. Utah, Nov. 21, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Easterseals-Goodwill Northern Rocky Mountain Inc. --
https://www.esgw.org/ -- is a private, nonprofit organization
serving children and adults with disabilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trevor C. Lang, Esq.
          MARSHALL OLSON & HULL PC
          10 Exchange Pl., Ste. 350
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Phone: (801) 456-7655
          Email: tlang@mohtrial.com


ELANCO ANIMAL: Continues to Defend Hunter Shareholder Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elanco Animal Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Company
intends to defend itself from Hunter Shareholder Class Suit.

On May 20, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned
Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the
Court) against Elanco and certain executives.

On September 3, 2020, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on
November 9, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding additional claims against Elanco, certain executives, and
other individuals. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and
certain of its executives made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's
supply chain, inventory, revenue and projections.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to
represent purchasers of Elanco securities between September 30,
2018 and May 6, 2020, and purchasers of Elanco common stock issued
in connection with Elanco's acquisition of Aratana. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss on January 13, 2021.

On August 17, 2022, the Court issued an order granting our motion
to dismiss the case without prejudice.

On October 14, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint, and the Company intends to oppose the
plaintiffs' motion. It believes the claims made in the case are
meritless, and it intends to vigorously defend it position.

Headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana, Elanco Animal Health Inc. is
a global manufacturer of animal health products. The company
develops, manufactures and markets products for a variety of
companion and food animals. Elanco revenue, pro forma for the
legacy Bayer business approximated $4.4 billion in 2020.

ELANCO ANIMAL: Continues to Defend Saffron Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elanco Animal Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Saffron Shareholder Class
Suit.

On October 16, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned
Saffron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al.
was filed in the Marion Superior Court of Indiana against Elanco,
certain executives, and other individuals.

On December 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that
Elanco and certain of its executives made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about
Elanco's relationships with third party distributors and revenue
attributable to those distributors within the registration
statement on Form S-3 dated January 21, 2020 and accompanying
prospectus filed in connection with Elanco's public offering which
closed on or about January 27, 2020.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to
represent purchasers of Elanco common stock or 5.00% TEUs issued in
connection with the public offering.

This case was previously stayed in deference to Hunter v. Elanco
Animal Health Inc. On October 24, 2022, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss. It believes the claims made in the case are meritless,
and it intends to vigorously defend our position.

Headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana, Elanco Animal Health Inc. is
a global manufacturer of animal health products. The company
develops, manufactures and markets products for a variety of
companion and food animals. Elanco revenue, pro forma for the
legacy Bayer business approximated $4.4 billion in 2020.

ENVIROCHEM INC: Engesser Sues Over Sex-Based Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Engesser, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. ENVIROCHEM, INC., and DEBORAH GILDERSLEEVE, and SID
FLEISHER, Case No. MID-L-005847-22 (N.J. Super. Ct., Middlesex
Cty., Nov. 23, 2022), is brought to redress Defendants' violations
of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), who
subjected the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to per se,
sex-based discrimination by failing to consider them for hire
and/or failing to hire them due to their sex.

The Defendants maintained a policy during the Relevant Period of
refusing to consider for hire and/or refusing to hire female
applicants for certain positions at the Defendant. On February 27,
2022, the Plaintiff submitted an application to the Defendant for a
position as a Production Worker at the Defendant's New Jersey
location. Thereafter, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that it
did not have any available positions for her since the only open
positions were "more suitable for men." The Defendants refused to
consider for hire and/or refused to hire the Plaintiff due to her
sex. Each Class Plaintiff sought employment with the Defendant. The
Defendants refused to consider for hire and/or refused to hire each
Class Plaintiff for one or more positions due to their sex during
the Relevant Period. As a result of the Defendants' actions, the
Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs have suffered damages, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff applied for employment with the Defendant in the
State of New Jersey.

EnviroChem, Inc. is a company that does business within the State
of New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          9 Tanner Street Suite 101
          Haddonfield, NJ 08038
          Phone: (856) 685-7420
          Fax: (856) 685-7417


EVOLUS INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Evolus 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 Company continues to
defend the Shareholder Derivative Suit.

On November 27, 2020 and December 2, 2020, two putative Evolus
shareholders filed substantially similar shareholder derivative
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against certain of the Company's officers and directors as
defendants. The complaints alleged substantially similar facts as
those in the Securities Class Action and assert claims for, among
other things, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets,
unjust enrichment, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21(D) of the
Exchange Act. On December 29, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a joint
stipulation to consolidate their actions and on February 5, 2021,
the court consolidated the action under the caption In re Evolus,
Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 1:20-cv-09986-PPG, and adjourned
defendants' time to move, answer or otherwise respond to the
complaints.

On September 20, 2021, the court so-ordered the parties' stipulated
stay of the consolidated derivative suit pending the court’s
decision on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Class
Action.

It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or additional
allegations will be made by stockholders, with respect to these
same or similar or other matters and also naming the Company and/or
its officers and directors as defendants. The Company believes that
the complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against it.

Evolus -- http://www.evolus.com/-- is a medical aesthetics company
focused on providing physicians and their patients with expanded
choices in aesthetic procedures and treatments.[BN]


EVOLUS INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Evolus 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 motions to
dismiss amended complaint in the Securities Class Action Suit were
fully briefed.

On October 16 and 28, 2020, two putative securities class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by Evolus shareholders Armin Malakouti and
Clinton Cox, respectively, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants. The complaints assert violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants
made false and materially misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts related to the Company's
acquisition of the right to sell Jeuveau, the complaint against the
Company filed by Allergan and Medytox in the U.S. International
Trade Commission related to Jeuveau (the "ITC Action"), and risks
related to the ITC Action.

The complaints assert a putative class period of February 1, 2019
to July 6, 2020. The court consolidated the actions on November 13,
2020, under the caption In re Evolus Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. 1:20-cv-08647 (PGG).

On September 17, 2021, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.

On November 17, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint against the Company, three of its officers, and
Alphaeon Corporation, the Company's former majority shareholder.

On January 18, 2022, the Company and the officer defendants served
their motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On February 10, 2022, Alphaeon Corporation served its motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. Both motions were fully briefed on
June 16, 2022.

Evolus -- http://www.evolus.com/-- is a medical aesthetics company
focused on providing physicians and their patients with expanded
choices in aesthetic procedures and treatments.[BN]


EXXON MOBIL: Sued Over Undisclosed Dangers
------------------------------------------
The Municipalities Of Bayamon, Caguas, Loiza, Lares, Barranquitas,
Comerio, Cayey, Las Marias, Trujillo Alto, Vega Baja, Anasco,
Cidra, Aguadilla, Aibonito, Morovis, and MOCA on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, known as the
Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. EXXON MOBIL CORP, SHELL PLC F.K.A.
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, CHEVRON CORP, BP PLC, CONOCOPHILLIPS, MOTIVA
ENTERPRISES, LLC, OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM F.K.A. ANADARKO  PETROLEUM
CORP, BHP, ARCH RESOURCES INC. F.K.A. ARCH COAL COMPANY, RIO TINTO
PLC, PEABODY ENERGY, XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-100, and JOHN AND JANE DOES
1-100, Case No. 3:22-cv-01550 (D. , Nov. 22, 2022), seeks to impose
liability on Defendants who misrepresented the dangers of the
carbon-based products which they marketed and sold despite their
early awareness of the devastation they would cause Puerto Rico.

The Defendants' production, promotion, refining, marketing, and
sale of fossil fuel-based consumer products played in causing the
losses, deaths and destruction of property resulting from the
catastrophic storms of September 2017 and their aftermath.
Moreover, for the losses and economic damages the Defendants' acts
continue to cause, accelerate, and contribute to the deleterious
alteration of Puerto Rico's climate, thereby damaging the
Municipalities of Puerto Rico, and damaging the health, safety, and
welfare of the people who reside in the Municipalities.

Instead of disclosing the truth about their products and their
impact on Puerto Rico, the Oil Defendants mobilized with the Coal
Defendants and other fossil fuel-dependent companies in 1989 to
form the "Global Climate Coalition" ("GCC"). Through the GCC,
Defendants funded a marketing campaign of deception that continues
to this day, in violation of federal and Puerto Rico consumer
protection rules, anticompetitive practices, racketeering statutes,
and common law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff, the Municipality of Bayamón, is a governmental
entity formed as a municipality within and in accordance with the
laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Exxon Mobil Corp. is incorporated in New Jersey, with its principal
place of business in Irving, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc D. Grossman, Esq.
          Melissa K. Sims, Esq.
          Luis Valiente Almeida-Olivieri, Esq.
          Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
          1311 Ponce de León Ave. Suite 700
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: mgrossman@milberg.com
                 msims@milberg.com
                 vmaniatis@milberg.com
                 lalmeida@milberg.com

               - and -

          Roy L. Mason, Esq.
          Zachary E. Howerton, Esq.
          SMOUSE & MASON, LLC
          250 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1120
          San Juan, PR 00918
          Phone: (410) 269-6620
          Fax: (410) 269-1235
          Email: rlm@smouseandmason.com
                 zeh@smouseandmason.com


FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE: Culver Sues Over Vaccine Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Culver, Alan Maner, Carter Whiteside, and Tyler Smith, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (FMIC aka "FM GLOBAL"), Case No.
6:22-cv-00444 (E.D. Tex., Nov. 21, 2022), is brought to remedy a
pattern of discrimination against employees who requested religious
accommodations from FM Global's mandate that employees receive a
COVID-19 vaccine.

Rather than complying with its obligations to provide reasonable
accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, FM
Global responded by informing all employees requesting religious
exemptions that they would be put out of work. Contrary to FM
Global's pretextual goal of "safety," there was no legitimate
business justification for these actions.

Proof that FM Global could have accommodated religious requests was
seen in its granting of accommodations for medical requests—and
in at least one case where an individual's religious request had
already been denied. The company simply disfavored religious
exemptions. FM Global was able to accommodate employees' medical
needs without any burden but terminated its religious employees
when the exact same accommodation options were available.

FM Global's actions left employees (such as Plaintiffs) with the
impossible choice of either taking the COVID-19 vaccine—at the
expense of their religious beliefs—or losing their livelihoods
and the ability to provide for their families—also a religious
command, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are/were employees who requested a religious
accommodation from FM Global's vaccine mandate.

FM Global is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in
Johnston, Rhode Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Sullivan
          S|L LAW PLLC
          610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000
          Cedar Hill, TX 75104
          Phone: (469) 523-1351
          Facsimile: (469) 613-0891
          Email: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com


FANDUEL INC: Esparza Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Miguel Esparza, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FANDUEL INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
37-2022-00042370-CU-MT-CTL was removed from the Superior Court for
the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on Nov. 23,
2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01853-BEN-RBB.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "all persons within
California who within the statute of limitations period:
communicated with Defendant via the chat feature on Defendant's
Website using a cellular telephone, and whose communications were
recorded and/or eavesdropped upon without prior consent."[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michelle Visser, Esq.
          Thomas K. Fu, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          355 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 2700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: +1 213 629 2020
          Facsimile: +1 213 612 2499
          Email: tfu@orrick.com


FOLGERS COFFEE: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Marketing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Folgers Coffee Marketing, Case No.
4:21-md-02984-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered
an order extending class certification deadlines as follows:

   -- Rebuttal expert reports are due:        December 9, 2022

   -- Reply expert reports are due:           January 6, 2022

   -- Expert discovery closes:                February 20, 2022

   -- Plaintiffs' motion for class            March 22, 2023
      certification is due:

   -- The Defendants' opposition              April 21, 2023
      is due:

   -- The Plaintiffs' reply is due:           May 22, 2023

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AOmgFdat no extra charge.[CC]


FRED MEYER: Faces $5-M Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Elise Haas, writing for KOIN, reports that Fred Meyer is facing a
class action lawsuit over wages as two employees are seeking at
least $5 million on behalf of employees who aren't getting paid.

Fred Meyer stores activated a new payroll system in September that
created widespread errors, causing people to miss multiple weeks of
pay, according to the lawsuit.

"We have experienced a technical error in paycheck distribution.
Although a small percentage of our associates have been affected,
we understand the impact. We are working quickly on resolving
known," said a Fred Meyer spokesperson in a statement.

The lawsuit claims the company violates Oregon wage laws.

One employee in Vancouver, Washington who was not listed in the
lawsuit, told KOIN 6 that since the launch of the new payroll
system, she and a bunch of people are not receiving full paychecks
or not receiving paychecks at all.

"I just feel so bad for all these other employees that are not
being paid at all for weeks on end because they're being forced
into a financial hole that's going to take them months to get out
of," said Emerson Ferguson, a Fred Meyer employee who says she
hasn't been paid in a month.

According to the lawsuit, one of the plaintiffs listed previously
worked at a Fred Meyer in Portland, and the other works in Medford.
[GN]

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Quinones, Gregory Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Quinones and Gregory
Putative Class Suits.

On June 3, 2021 and June 22, 2021, purported stockholders of the
Company filed putative class action lawsuits in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director, David
Lucchino.

On March 21, 2022, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single
lawsuit, Quinones et al. v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. et al. and
on May 16, 2022, the Company's Chief Development Officer, Dr. Carl
LeBel, was added as a defendant.

The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule
10b5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), due to allegedly false and misleading statements and
omissions about the Company's Phase 2a clinical trial (FX-322-202)
for its product candidate FX-322 in the Company's public
disclosures between October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, damages in connection with
the Company's allegedly artificially inflated stock price between
October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021 as a result of those allegedly
false and misleading statements and omissions, as well as interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on July
15, 2022. This matter is at the very early stages of the legal
process, and as a result, the Company is not able to estimate a
range of possible loss. Since an estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time, no accruals have been
recorded as of September 30, 2022.

On June 21, 2022, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed a lawsuit
brought by two purported stockholders against the Company and
others. For previously reported information on this lawsuit, refer
to Part I, Item 3, "Legal Proceedings" of the Company's 2021 Form
10-K. On August 16, 2022, these same two purported stockholders of
the Company filed a similar lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court
against (i) the Company, (ii) Computershare Inc., and (iii)
Computershare Trust Company, N.A., entitled The Gregory J.
Parseghian Revocable Trust, et al. v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc.,
et al. The lawsuit alleges causes of action against the Company for
breach of the statutory duty of care, negligence, conversion, and
unjust enrichment, based on allegations that actions were taken to
prevent the purported stockholders from selling their shares in the
Company.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted in the lawsuit.

Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology
company focused on harnessing the body's innate biology to repair
or reverse damage caused by a broad range of degenerative diseases
and a global leader in the science and development of medicines for
inner-ear cellular regeneration and hearing restoration. The
company is based in Lexington, Massachusetts.


FTX TRADING: Harris Beach Attorneys Discuss Investor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peri Berger, Esq., Shannon Cogbill, Esq., Abbie Eliasberg Fuchs,
Esq., Constantine Lizas, Esq., Mairead Maguire, Esq., and Marni
Weiner, Esq., of Harris Beach PLLC, in an article for JDSupra,
report that on November 15, 2022, the CEO of FTX and various
alleged celebrity endorsers were sued in Florida federal court by
Edwin Garrison, an FTX investor. In the complaint, Garrison alleges
that FTX engaged in the unlawful sale of a security (in this case,
FTX's interest-bearing crypto accounts), deceptive and unfair
business practices, and participation in a civil conspiracy he
compares to a "Ponzi scheme." Specifically, the complaint states
FTX ran a "fraudulent scheme" designed to take advantage of
"unsophisticated investors." Garrison claims investors have
collectively sustained $11 billion in losses. In his complaint,
Garrison applied to have the investors certified as a class, which
would allow the lawsuit to proceed as a class action lawsuit.

This dispute was the direct result of FTX's recent corporate
upheaval and bankruptcy filing. Earlier this month, investors
rushed to withdraw their funds from the exchange due to concerns
about its financial security, which exposed a liquidity crisis
within the company. FTX subsequently filed for bankruptcy on
November 11, and listed its assets as valued between $10 billion
and $50 billion, and more than 100,000 creditors. The next day, FTX
claims it was hacked, estimating between $300 and $600 million in
cryptocurrency was stolen. FTX's CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried, has
resigned, and is now under investigation by the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the Justice Department.

The FTX controversy is unfolding in real time online, particularly
on Twitter. In fact, Garrison's complaint includes a series of
tweets from former CEO Bankman-Fried made the day before the
bankruptcy filing, where he admits fault and takes responsibility
for the crisis.

The most significant issue set forth in the complaint revolves
around treatment of FTX's yield bearing accounts as securities. The
question of whether digital assets can be considered securities1 is
not new to the crypto world. However, the answer to that question
is largely unsettled. Generally, courts have applied the
four-pronged Howey test that asks whether there has been (1) an
investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with a
reasonable expectation of profit; (4) derived from the efforts of
others. This analysis will drive not only the FTX litigation, but
also cryptocurrency regulation and litigation as a whole.

Cryptocurrency and Celebrity Endorsers
Here, the analysis is critical because, if Howey is implicated,
there are additional regulations that needed to be followed and the
endorser of the product needed to disclose they are being
compensated or have a conflict of interest. This is significant in
the case of FTX, as Garrison has named a host of high-profile
celebrities as defendants, including NFL quarterback Tom Brady,
model Gisele Bundchen, TV personality Kevin O'Leary, comedian Larry
David and NBA player Steph Curry. Garrison alleges they engaged in
deceptive practices when they appeared in advertisements for FTX
and assured potential investors that FTX was a secure and lucrative
investment, without disclosing the scope of the compensation they
received, and without conducting due diligence about the integrity
of the company.

This lawsuit has the potential to affect the future regulation and
legal landscape of the cryptocurrency industry and is likely the
first of many involving FTX; this dispute will be closely watched
to determine where the courts will land on the ongoing question of
the interpretation of cryptocurrencies as securities.  In fact,
this lawsuit, and the current issues surrounding FTX, have already
sent a shockwave through the cryptocurrency and digital assets
industry as a whole. A decision on this case will have
ramifications throughout the country and the world. Given its
importance and the rapid developments, this case will be closely
followed by the crypto, financial and legal community alike. [GN]

FULGENT GENETICS: Denies Allegations in Securities Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fulgent Genetics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that the
Company denies allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself
in a putative class action complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
2:22-cv-06764).

On September 20, 2022, the Company and two of its executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Case No. 2:22-cv-06764) on behalf of individuals who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
March 22, 2019 and August 4, 2022.

The Complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the
Company and certain of its executive officers made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose laboratory testing,
billing for laboratory testing, and remuneration received or
provided that purportedly violated the Anti-Kickback Statute and
Stark Law, and purportedly are the subject of a Civil Investigative
Demand, or CID,  discussed in Note 8, Debt, Commitments and
Contingencies, of the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements. The Complaint seeks recovery of unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' fees and other relief.

The Company denies Plaintiffs' allegations and intends to
vigorously defend this matter. However, given the preliminary stage
of the lawsuit, the uncertainty of litigation, and the legal
standards that must be met for success on the merits, the Company
cannot predict the outcome at this time or estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

Fulgent Genetics, Inc. is a provider of COVID-19, molecular
diagnostic, and genetic testing services to physicians and
patients
in the United States and internationally, with principal executive
offices located at 4978 Santa Anita Avenue, Temple City,
California.


GALLERY MODEL HOMES: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gallery Model Homes,
Inc. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Gallery Model Homes, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-09947 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Gallery Model Homes, Inc., doing business as Gallery Furniture,
owns and operates furniture stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GAME OVER VIDEOGAMES: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Game Over Videogames,
Inc. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Game Over Videogames, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-09949 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Game Over Videogames, Inc. -- https://gameovervideogames.com/ -- is
an independent chain of RETRO video game stores dedicated to the
LOVE of classic video games, systems, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GEOFF STANLEY: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in McGowan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY MCGOWAN et al., v.
GEOFF STANLEY et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06971-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an Pretrial Scheduling order as
follows:

   1. The parties shall comply with         Dec. 9, 2022
      their Rule 26(a)(1), Fed. R.
      Civ. P., initial disclosure
      obligations by:

   2. The parties are instructed to         March 2023
      contact the chambers of
      Magistrate Judge Katherine
      H. Parker prior to Nov. 30,
      2022 in order to schedule
      settlement discussion to
      occur in:

   3. All fact discovery must be            May 26, 2023:
      completed by:

   4. Expert reports and disclosure         June 16, 2023
      of expert testimony conforming
      to the requirement of Rule
      26(a)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
      by the party bearing the
      burden on an issue must
      be served by:

   5. Identification of rebuttal           July 14, 2023
      experts and disclosure of
      their expert testimony must
      occur by:

   6. All expert discovery must be         Aug. 25, 2023
      completed by:

   7. Motion for Class Certification:

              -- Motion served by:        March 24, 2023

              -- Opposition served by:    April 14, 2023

              -- Reply served by:         April 28, 2023

   8. Motion for Summary Judgment:

              -- Motion served by:        Sept. 24, 2023

              -- Opposition served by:    Oct. 13, 2023

              -- Reply served by:         Oct. 27, 2023

   9. In the event no motion for          Sept. 22, 2023
      summary judgment is filled,
      the Joint Pretrial Order
      must filed  by:

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AJaEU9at no extra charge.[CC]

GEORGIA-PACIFIC WOOD: Harris, McCullum Seek Rule 23 Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE HARRIS and ROY
McCULLUM,Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC WOOD PRODUCTS LLC and GEORGIA-PACIFIC
CONSUMER OPERATIONS LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02530-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting his Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification:

      "All hourly employees who worked for Georgia-Pacific Wood
      Products LLC and Georgia-Pacific Consumer Operations
      LLC in Arkansas since June 24, 2019."

   2. appointing attorney Josh Sanford and Sanford Law Firm,
      PLLC, as class counsel to represent them in this case
      pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure, as supported by the Declaration of Attorney
      Josh Sanford;

   3. approving the proposed Notice; and

   4. granting his counsel a period of 21 days -- beginning on
      the date on which Defendants fully and completely release
      the Unnamed Class Members' contact information to
      Plaintiff's counsel -- during which to distribute the
      Notice and receive opt-out requests.

The Plaintiffs worked as an hourly employee for Defendants
Georgia-Pacific Wood Products LLC and Georgia-Pacific Consumer
Operations LLC.

The Plaintiffs Bruce Harris and Roy McCullum brought this suit,
each individually and on behalf of all other all former and current
hourly-paid employees employed by Defendants, who are similarly
situated, to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
("AMWA").

Georgia-Pacific produces a variety of structural panels, lumber and
composite panel products for residential and light commercial
construction.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AGuXl3at
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven E. Wolfe, Esq.
          LEGARE, ATTWOOD & WOLFE, LLC
          125 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 380
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (470) 823-4000
          Facsimile: (470) 201-1212
          E-mail: sewolfe@law-llc.com

                - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          A. Craig Cleland, Esq.
          Lauren H. Zeldin, Esq.
          Harry M. Rowland, III, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          One Ninety-One Peachtree Tower
          191 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 4800
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 881-1300
          Facsimile: (404) 870-1732
          E-mail: lauren.zeldin@ogletreedeakins.com
                  craig.cleland@ogletreedeakins.com
                  harry.rowland@ogletreedeakins.com

GERON CORP: $24MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 30, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIA JUNGE and RICHARD JUNGE, on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated investors,

Plaintiffs,

v.


GERON CORPORATION and JOHN A. SCARLETT,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00547-WHA

(Consolidated with Case
No. 3:20-cv-01163-WHA)

(Related Cases:

No. 3:20-cv-02823-WHA

No. 3:22-mc-80051-WHA)


SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION;
(II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS TO LEAD PLAINTIFFS

To: All persons who purchased Geron Corporation ("Geron") common
stock during the period from March 19, 2018, to September 26, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the
"Class").1

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that the Court-appointed
Lead Plaintiffs and Class Representatives, Julia Junge and Richard
Junge, on behalf of themselves and the Court-certified Class in the
above-captioned securities class action (the "Action"), have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action with defendants Geron
Corporation ("Geron") and John A. Scarlett ("Scarlett", and
together with Geron, the "Defendants") for $24,000,000 ($17,000,000
in cash, and $7,000,000 in Settlement Stock and/or cash, at Geron's
option).2  The Court has given preliminary approval to the
Settlement, but has invited your comments and objections and would
like to take into account the Class members' views of the
Settlement before making a final decision on March 30, 2023.  If
the Settlement is approved by the Court, it will resolve and
dismiss with prejudice all claims in the Action.

A Settlement Fairness Hearing will be held on March 30, 2023 at
11:00 a.m. Pacific Time, before the Honorable William Alsup, either
in person at the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom 12 -
19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, or by
telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court) to
determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement ("Stipulation") dated September 2, 2022 should be
granted3; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of
Litigation Expenses should be approved, as well as the application
for service awards to the Lead Plaintiffs.

Lead Counsel Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (also serving as
Court-appointed Class Counsel), has been prosecuting the Action on
a wholly contingent basis, has not received any payment of
attorneys' fees for their representation of the Class and have
advanced the funds to pay Litigation Expenses necessarily incurred
to prosecute the Action. Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for
an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 18% of the
Settlement Fund, or $4.32 million, plus interest. In addition, Lead
Counsel will apply for payment of Litigation Expenses in connection
with the institution, prosecution, and resolution of the Action in
an amount not to exceed $1,140,000.  Lead Counsel will also apply
for up to $12,500 in total service award payments for the Lead
Plaintiffs.  Any fees, Litigation Expenses and/or service awards
approved by the Court will be paid solely from the Settlement Fund.
Class Members are not personally liable for any such fees,
Litigation Expenses or service awards.  The estimated average cost
for such fees, awards and expenses, if the Court approves Lead
Counsel's fee and expense application, including the service awards
to the Lead Plaintiffs, is $0.04 per affected share.  Based on Lead
Plaintiffs' damages expert's estimate of the number of shares of
Geron common stock purchased during the Class Period that may have
been affected by the conduct at issue in the Action, and assuming
that all Class Members elect to participate in the Settlement, the
estimated average recovery (before the deduction of any
Court-approved fees, Litigation Expenses, awards and costs as
described herein) is $0.17 per affected share.

If you purchased Geron common stock during the Class Period and are
a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending
Settlement of the Action, and you may be entitled to a payment from
the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the full
printed Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation;
(II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Litigation Expenses and Service Awards to Lead Plaintiffs (the
"Settlement Notice") and the Claim Form, you may obtain copies of
these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Geron
Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions,
P.O. Box 4574, Portland, OR 97208-4574, 1-844-754-5537, or at
info@GeronSecuritiesLitigation.com.  Copies of the Settlement
Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website for
the Action, www.GeronSecuritiesLitigation.com.  The Settlement
Notice and Claim Form may also be viewed on www.kaplanfox.com
through the date of the Settlement Fairness Hearing.

If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
either online to the Claims Administrator at
www.GeronSecuritiesLitigation.com or send it by First-Class U.S.
mail (and if mailed, postmarked) by no later than midnight Pacific
Time on February 16, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Settlement Notice. If you are a Class Member and do
not submit a Claim Form with all required information and
supporting documentation, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action, including the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Settlement Notice.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion and submit it
either online to the Claims Administrator at
www.GeronSecuritiesLitigation.com or send it by First-Class U.S.
mail (and if mailed, postmarked)  by no later than March 9, 2023 at
midnight Pacific Time, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Settlement Notice, unless you have previously
submitted a request for exclusion in response to the Original Class
Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement or to object to the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and payment of Litigation Expenses or service awards to Lead
Plaintiffs, must be received by the Court no later than March 9,
2023 at midnight Pacific Time (the "Objection Deadline"), in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement
Notice, which provides options available at the Court for Class
Members to file the objections electronically on the docket for the
Action by the Objection Deadline, to visit locations of the Court
to file the objections by the Objection Deadline, or to mail the
objections to a designated contact point and address at the Court,
with the mailing postmarked by the Objection Deadline.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or
Defendants' Counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or
Class Counsel.

Please note that the Court may change the date and time of the
Settlement Fairness Hearing without further notice to the Class,
and Class Members should check www.GeronSecuritiesLitigation.com or
the Court's PACER website to confirm that the hearing date has not
been changed.  Information and further guidance on how to access
the Court's case docket or PACER is contained in the Settlement
Notice.  You may also visit Judge Alsup's webpage on the Northern
District of California website at
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/alsup-william-wha/, where
there is a link to view the schedule for upcoming hearings and
other information.

Requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form should be made
to:

Geron Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions
P.O. Box 4574
Portland, OR 97208-4574
1-844-754-5537

Inquiries, other than requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim
Form should be made to Lead/ Class Counsel:

Laurence D. King, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
1-800-290-1952
lking@kaplanfox.com

Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
1-800-290-1952
jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

By Order of the Court
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Questions? Visit www.GeronSecuritiesLitigation.com or call
1-844-754-5537

1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition and others are excluded pursuant to request. The full
definition of the Class, including a complete description of who is
excluded from the Class, is set forth in the Settlement Notice
referred to herein.

2 No Settlement Stock will be issued to Class Members. Rather,
Settlement Stock will be sold and the proceeds maintained as part
of the Settlement Fund for distribution as ordered by the Court.

3 All capitalized terms herein have the same meaning as set forth
in the Stipulation.


GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Action for $391.5-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam B. Korn, Esq., Sebastian A. Navarro, Esq., and Todd Rosenbaum,
Esq., of Mintz, disclosed that in what is considered the largest
privacy-related settlement in history, Google will pay $391.5
million to 40 states to settle an investigation by 40 state
attorneys general. The bipartisan coalition of attorneys general
alleged that Google misled users into believing that opting out of
sharing their location data prevented the company from tracking
users' locations. But even when users opted out of location
tracking, researchers confirmed that Google nonetheless tracked
user location data across a number of its services, including its
search tool, maps, and applications. The practices, which occurred
between 2014 and 2020, violated consumer protection statutes that
prohibit misleading and deceiving consumers, the attorneys general
said. Among the consumer protection statutes that were violated
according to the investigation were New York General Business Law
Sections 349 and 350 and Massachusetts General Law Chapter 93A.

User location data was allegedly sold to advertisers, who then used
the data to provide targeted advertisements to consumers based on
their locations. The attorneys general claimed the valuable
location data was key to Google's advertising business, which has
generated more than $200 billion in annual ad revenue.

In addition to the significant payout, the company also agreed to
improve its disclosures regarding location tracking data as part of
the settlement. In a blog post published on November 14, 2022,
Google assured it would soon provide users "even greater controls
and transparency over location data."

The record settlement comes at the midst of increasing pressure
from state and federal lawmakers across the political spectrum to
revamp corporate privacy practices and policies. Proposed federal
legislation seeks to regulate and apply greater scrutiny to privacy
practices, including allowing federal, state, and private causes of
action for privacy violations. Such legislation would permit
private and public lawsuits nationwide. Although the legislation in
its current form is not expected to pass, it illustrates the
political momentum behind increased privacy regulations.

The current statutory landscape also provides state-specific
avenues to challenge privacy practices and policies, as five
states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and
Virginia, already have comprehensive consumer data privacy laws.
Among these five states, only California permits a private right of
action. Other states have introduced privacy legislation or passed
targeted privacy legislation. Illinois, for example, has biometric
data laws (the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, or BIPA) that create
a private right of action, which has served as the basis for
several major lawsuits and settlements, including a $228 million
class action judgment against BNSF Railway Co. resulting from its
requirement that truck drivers provide biometric identifiers to
access the company's facilities. The social media giant TikTok also
entered into a $92 million settlement to resolve class action
lawsuit based on BIPA claims in October 2022. Internationally,
Europe has its own set of comprehensive privacy regulations that
have similarly prompted multimillion dollar fines by European
regulators. Within the past year, New York-based facial recognition
company Clearview AI was fined £7.5 million by a U.K. privacy
regulator and €20 million by both Italian and French data
protection agencies for violation of European privacy laws.

It is very likely that there will be an increase in privacy
lawsuits and settlements as new privacy legislation is passed. In
fact, there has already been an increase. For example, Apple was
recently sued in California under the California Invasion of
Privacy Act for its own data collection practices. Similar to
Google's practices that prompted settlement, the lawsuit alleged
that Apple tracks and shares application data across hundreds of
thousands of users, despite users disabling such features.
Moreover, three states and the District of Columbia also sued
Google in their respective jurisdictions in January 2022 for the
company's location tracking practices. The cases are currently
pending, and Google's motions to dismiss in two cases were denied.
As far as settlements, Google also separately paid $85 million in
October 2022 to settle a privacy lawsuit brought by the State of
Arizona.

The evolving legal landscape around data privacy should encourage
data holders to regularly assess their practices concerning the use
of consumer data.

If you have any questions about your data collection and use
policies, or need to develop and implement such policies, contact
the Mintz Privacy Team. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Landfair Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned David Landfair and Samuel M. Gershman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 22-CV-405052 was removed from the Santa Clara
County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on Nov. 22, 2022, and assigned Case
No. 5:22-cv-07427-SVK.

The Plaintiffs allege that Google engaged in unlawful retention of
its customers' video rental history and other personal information
in violation of the New York Video Consumer Privacy Act and
Minnesota's M.S.A. The Plaintiffs seek minimum statutory damages of
$500 per class member as well as prejudgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benedict Y Hur, Esq.
          Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
          Joshua Anderson, Esq.
          Erica S Miranda, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
          One Front Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 858-7400
          Facsimile: (415) 858-7599
          Email: bhur@willkie.com
                 sagnolucci@willkie.com
                 jdanderson@willkie.com
                 emiranda@willkie.com

GOOGLE LLC: Scheduling Order Entered in Digital Ads Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Google Digital Advertising
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-03010-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel entered a scheduling order as follows:

  -- The parties shall negotiate an           Jan. 13, 2023
     appropriate protocol regarding
     Electronically Stored Information
     and present either an agreed-upon
     proposed stipulation, or their
     respective positions as to those
     portions of the stipulation on
     which they do not agree, by:

  -- All fact discovery shall be             June 28, 2024
     completed by:

  -- Initial requests for production         Jan. 27, 2023
     of documents and data shall be
     served by:

  -- All expert discovery shall be           Dec. 27, 2024
     completed by:

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GDVVO1at no extra charge.[CC]

GRETCHEN WHITMER: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR J. ROUSE, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, et al., in their individual
and official capacities, Case No. 2:20-cv-12308-BAF-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge David R. Grand entered an order extending
the deadline for plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
extending the parties' deadline for filing proposed case management
and discovery plan:

  -- The Plaintiffs shall have until December 5, 2022, to file
     their motion for class certification.

  -- The Parties shall have until December 8, 2022, to file
     their proposed case management and discovery plan.

On September 21, 2022, this Court held a scheduling conference to
establish a timeline for the efficient resolution of this case.

The Parties have continued to engage in settlement discussions. Due
to the Defendants' schedules and the necessarily complex subject of
injunctive relief in the context of incarcerated persons, counsel
for the Defendants was only able to provide Plaintiff's counsel
with tentative draft language for a settlement on October 31,
2022.

Since November 8, 2022, the parties have continued to engage in
settlement negotiations

Gretchen Esther Whitmer is an American lawyer and politician
serving as the 49th governor of Michigan since 2019.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XG0EF4at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Matouka, Esq.
          OLIVER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1647 W. Big Beaver Rd.
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 327-6556
          E-mail: notifications@oliverlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Zachary Zurek, Esq.
          MDOC DIVISION
          P.O. Box 30217
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 335-3055
          E-mail: zurekz1@michigan.go

GRUBHUB INC: $42MM Settlement to be Heard on January 12, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Grubhub Inc. Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

ROEI AZAR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,

Plaintiff,


vs.

GRUBHUB INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-07665

CLASS ACTION

Judge Matthew F. Kennelly

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole

    
SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:   
ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED GRUBHUB, INC. ("GRUBHUB")
COMMON STOCK BETWEEN APRIL 25, 2019 AND OCTOBER 28, 2019,
INCLUSIVE

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division (the "Court") and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, that (i) the above-captioned litigation (the
"Litigation") has been preliminarily certified as a class action on
behalf of a class of all Persons who purchased Grubhub common stock
between April 25, 2019 and October 28, 2019, inclusive, except for
certain Persons excluded from the Class as defined in the full
printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"), which is available as described below; and (ii) Lead
Plaintiff and Defendants in the Litigation have reached an
agreement to settle the Litigation for $42,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"). If the Settlement is approved it will resolve all
claims in the Litigation. Any capitalized terms used in this
Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation of Settlement dated
October 7, 2022 (the "Stipulation") and the Notice.

A telephonic hearing will be held on January 12, 2023, at 9:00
a.m., before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly. The dial-in number
is 888-684-8852, access code 746-1053. The purpose of the hearing
is to determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims
in the Litigation for the sum of $42,000,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether a Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlement;
(3) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation; (4) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (5)
the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection
with this Litigation, together with the interest earned thereon
(and any payment to the Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in connection with its
representation of the Class).

If you purchased or acquired Grubhub common stock during the period
between April 25, 2019 and October 28, 2019, inclusive, your rights
may be affected by the settlement of this Litigation. If you have
not received a detailed Notice and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies (as well as
a copy of the Stipulation) by writing to Grubhub Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box
6198, Novato, CA 94948-6198, or by downloading this information at
www.GrubhubSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member, in
order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you
must submit a Proof of Claim either online at
www.GrubhubSecuritiesLitigation.com by February 2, 2023, or by mail
postmarked no later than February 2, 2023, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion postmarked by December 22, 2022, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above.
All Members of the Class who do not timely and validly request
exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in
the Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed or delivered to the
Clerk of the Court and counsel for the Settling Parties at the
addresses below such that it is received no later than December 22,
2022:

Court:

Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff:

Theodore J. Pintar
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

Counsel for Defendants:

Stefan Atkinson
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact counsel for Lead Plaintiff at the address listed above,
email settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com, or go to the following website:
www.GrubhubSecuritiesLitigation.com.

DATED: October 14, 2022
  
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


H&K PERFORATING: Farber Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H&K Perforating LLC.
The case is styled as Robert Farber, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. H&K Perforating LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-06519 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 21, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

H&K Perforating -- https://hkperf.com/ -- provides precision
perforated metal and perforated services to customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Fax: (608) 509-4423
          Email: raina@turkestrauss.com
                 sam@turkestrauss.com


HALLMARK CARDS: Discloses Website Visitors' Info, Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action alleges Hallmark Cards has illegally
disclosed website visitors' identities and video-viewing habits to
Facebook without consent.

The 16-page lawsuit claims that when consumers watch video greeting
cards at HallmarkVideoGreetingCards.com, the retailer secretly
reports their personal details to Facebook, including the title of
each video they viewed, its corresponding URL and every time they
clicked a button to play the video. In addition to viewing data,
Hallmark also discloses an individual's Facebook ID (FID), an
identifier anyone can append to the end of Facebook.com to identify
a Facebook profile and access all publicly listed personal
information therein, the case says.

Facebook uses this data to connect a consumer's activity on
Hallmark's website with their profile, the suit asserts. This
practice can be confirmed by downloading an "off-site activity"
report that the social media giant says provides a "summary of
activity that businesses and organizations share with us about your
interactions, such as visiting their apps or websites," the
complaint states.

The complaint explains that Facebook improves its targeted
advertising capabilities by monitoring users' "offsite" activities
and learning more about their interests beyond what they freely
disclose.

The filing claims Facebook gets a hold of outside data by
instructing advertisers, like Hallmark, to integrate a programming
code known as the "Facebook Tracking Pixel" into the back end of
their websites. Per the complaint, Hallmark uses the pixel to
capture visitors' interactions with its website and send a record
of the events to Facebook.

"Why? So Facebook can bombard the person with more ads urging the
person to buy products from [Hallmark Cards]," the case contests.

According to the case, Hallmark Cards' failure to obtain consumers'
written permission before disseminating their personally
identifiable information to a third party violates the federal
Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).

"Given the nature of Defendants' business, the content of videos
that visitors watch is potentially highly sensitive. Visitors would
be shocked and appalled to know that Defendants secretly disclose
to Facebook all of key data regarding a visitors' viewing habits,"
the filing charges.

The lawsuit looks to cover anyone in the United States who watched
video content on HallmarkVideoGreetingCards.com and whose
personally identifiable information was disclosed by Hallmark Cards
to Facebook. [GN]

HAPPY STREET: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, AARON HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action,
Plaintiff v. HAPPY STREET LLC, HAPPY STREET TOO LLC, and SLOBODAN
RADIVOJEVIC (a/k/a Bob Radivojevic), Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-06918 (E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New York Labor Law and their supporting New York State Department
of Labor regulations.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a pizzaman and
general worker at the Defendants' restaurants from on or around
January 2014 through and including June 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him any
wages for his final week of work at Collins Pizza. In addition,
despite working overtime hours as required by the Defendants, he
never received an overtime premium at one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.

The Plaintiff also asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendants failed to post notices regarding the
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated employees' wages;

     -- The Defendant failed to provide them with wage statement;
and

     -- The Defendants failed to provide them any notice of their
rate of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such other information
as required by NYLL.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, spread of
hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs
and disbursements of this action, and other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

Happy Street LLC and Happy Street Too LLC operate various
restaurants. Slobodan Radivojevic is the owner, officer, and/or
agent of the Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Tel: (212) 792-0048
          E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Hutley Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hutley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00902 (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022), is brought as an antitrust
action directed at Harley-Davidson's anticompetitive conduct:
Harley-Davidson used its warranty to try to force Harley owners to
use its own parts, rather than the many quality aftermarket parts
available for its motorcycles.

Harley-Davidson's use of its warranty in this manner violated the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, as
charged by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and admitted by
Harley-Davidson in its acceptance of the consent decree it entered
with the FTC on June 22, 2022. Because of the longevity and
popularity of its motorcycles, and because of customers'
willingness to customize and/or keep older Harley-Davidsons on the
road for many years, there is a vast aftermarket for parts to
repair and customize Harleys.

The aftermarket for Harley-compatible parts became a threat to
Harley-Davidson's bottom line. Harley-Davidson makes approximately
15% of its annual revenue from parts. In order to maximize its
parts revenue and profit, Harley-Davidson used its warranty to try
to suppress competition from aftermarket parts competitors and to
force Harley owners under warranty to use only Harley-Davidson's
own parts.

Harley-Davidson illegally tied its own branded parts to its
motorcycles (and the factory warranties that go with them). As a
result, Harley-Davidson has lessened competition in the market for
Harley-compatible replacement parts. This has allowed
Harley-Davidson to charge supracompetitive prices for its parts, at
the expense of the consumers who buy them.

The FTC's consent decree with Harley-Davidson obtained injunctive
relief to put a stop to at least some of Harley-Davidson's illegal
business practices. The FTC, however, lacks the authority to
recover consumers' damages. In this litigation, Plaintiffs seek to
recover those damages--the overpayment for Harley-brand parts--from
Harley-Davidson for the proposed consumer Class, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a Harley motorcycle from Harley-Davidson of
Jamestown on July 9, 2020.

Harley-Davidson is one of the oldest and most recognizable vehicle
brands in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
          111 West 2nd Street #1100
          Jamestown, NY 14701
          Phone: (716) 854-3400
          Email: bailey@ruppbaase.com

               - and -

          Marco Cercone, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
          1600 Liberty Building
          424 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Phone: (716) 854-3400
          Email: cercone@ruppbaase.com

               - and -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Email: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                 hmsilton@locklaw.com
                 jnservais@locklaw.com
                 jcbourne@locklaw.com


HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: IRPA Class Action Dismissal Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Grzincic, writing for Reuters, reports that Hearst
Communications did not violate Illinois law by offering to sell
mailing lists with personal information about its 9.1 million
subscribers to data-miners, list-brokers, and other "aggressive"
marketers, a federal appeals court held.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on Nov. 22 the
February dismissal of a potential class action that "Good
Housekeeping" subscriber Elizabeth Huston filed last year, accusing
the media conglomerate of violating the Illinois Right of Publicity
Act (IRPA).

IRPA, like laws in about half the U.S. states, replaces the
common-law right of publicity that protects individuals from having
their image or likeness used in advertising without their consent.
Illinois' version, enacted in 1999, imposes a minimum $1,000 fine
for every use of an individual's "identity" for "commercial
purposes" without written consent.

However, the law's definition of "commercial purpose" is directed
to the pre-sale marketing process, banning the use of a person's
identity "to sell or offer to sell" a product or service, Circuit
Judge Joel Flaum wrote. That "necessarily" excludes the information
on Hearst's mailing lists, which was "only revealed after the sale
is completed," he wrote.

"Huston's name and other information may have been sold, but it was
not used to sell anything," Flaum summed up, joined by Chief
Circuit Judge Diane Sykes and Circuit Judge John Z. Lee. "That
brings Huston's claim outside IRPA's ambit."

Hearst Corp Senior Vice President and Co-General Counsel Jonathan
Donnellan, who argued the appeal, did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on Nov. 22.

Huston's lawyers, James Dominick Larry of Nick Larry Law and Arun
Ravindran of Hedin Hall, also had no immediate response.

According to Huston's July 2021 complaint, she sought to represent
an estimated class of "thousands" of Illinois citizens whose
information was included on Hearst's mailing lists without their
written consent.

U.S. District Judge Michael Mihm granted Hearst's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. He
ruled that IRPA liability "is limited to instances where a person's
identity is used or held out to sell a separate product, and the
mailing lists are not separate from Huston's identity."

The 7th Circuit affirmed Mihm's ruling but rejected his reason,
focusing instead on the fact that mailing-list purchasers only
gained access to Huston's information after the sale was complete.

"It is not enough for Huston's name and other information to appear
on or within a product," Flaum wrote. "Her identity must help sell
something -- whether it is that product or a separate product or
service."

The case is Elizabeth Huston v Hearst Communications Inc., 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-1489.

For Huston: James Dominick Larry of Nick Larry Law and Arun
Ravindran of Hedin Hall

For Hearst: Jonathan Donnellan and Andrea Butler, Hearst Corp [GN]

IANTHUS CAPITAL: Kwong Class Suit Market Claim Hearing Date Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ianthus Capital Holdings 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
Kwong Putative Class Suit's market claim hearing date is vacated.

On July 23, 2020, Blue Sky Realty Corporation filed a putative
class action against the Company, the Company's former Chief
Executive Officer, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer in the
OSCJ in Toronto, Ontario.

On September 27, 2021, the OSCJ granted leave for the plaintiff to
amend its claim ("Amended Claim"). In the Amended Claim, the
plaintiff seeks to certify the proposed class action on behalf of
two classes. "Class A" consists of all persons, other than any
executive level employee of the Company and their immediate
families ("Excluded Persons"), who acquired the Company's common
shares in the secondary market on or after April 12, 2019, and who
held some or all of those securities until after the close of
trading on April 5, 2020. "Class B" consists of all persons, other
than Excluded Persons, who acquired the Company's common shares
prior to April 12, 2019, and who held some or all of those
securities until after the close of trading on April 5, 2020. Among
other things, the plaintiff alleges statutory and common law
misrepresentation, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages
together with interest and costs.

The plaintiff also alleges common law oppression for releasing
certain statements allegedly containing misrepresentations inducing
Class B members to hold the Company's securities beyond April 5,
2020. No certification motion has been scheduled. The Amended Claim
also changed the named plaintiff from Blue Sky Realty Corporation
to Timothy Kwong.

The hearing date for the motion for leave to proceed with a
secondary market claim under the Securities Act (Ontario) has been
vacated.

Ianthus Capital Holdings, Inc. is an owner and operator of licensed
cannabis cultivation, processing and dispensary facilities, and a
developer, producer and distributor of innovative branded cannabis
and CBD products in New York, United States.



IMMIGRANT ELDER HOME: Akter Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapna Akter and Muhammad Alam, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. IMMIGRANT ELDER HOME CARE LLC and
GIASH AHMED, Case No. 1:22-cv-09868-RA (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022),
is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiffs for all the
hours they worked in excess of forty hours per week at the overtime
premium rate. The Defendants issued the Plaintiffs two separate
earning statements for the same pay period: one reflecting only
forty hours per week, and the other reflecting only twelve hours
per week. The Defendants unlawfully withheld the Plaintiffs' pay
for the first two weeks of their employment for the purpose of
"security deposit." To date, the Defendants failed to pay such
"deposit" back.

The Defendants constructively terminated the Plaintiffs' employment
in retaliation for them for complaints of, and opposition to, their
unlawful pay scheme. For the duration of their employment, the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the applicable minimum wage
rate in accordance with the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants failed to
keep accurate records of wages earned or hours worked by the
Plaintiffs. The Defendants knowingly and willfully violated the
FLSA and NYLL with respect to the Plaintiffs' employment, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked with the Defendants in the position of a home
health care attendant.

Immigrant Elder Home Care LLC was and is a domestic business
corporation organized and existing under the laws of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Olena Tatura, Esq.
          AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 1420
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 825-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 825-1440
          Email: olena@akinlaws.com


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: $4MM Settlement to be Heard on January 19, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Sobol Shapiro LLP disclosed that the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey has approved the following
announcement of a proposed securities class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of Immunomedics, Inc. securities.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED IMMUNOMEDICS,
INC. SECURITIES FROM MAY 2, 2016 THROUGH JUNE 24, 2016, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing will
be held on January 19, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable
Katharine S. Hayden, United States District Judge of the District
of New Jersey, United States Courthouse, Room 4015, 50 Walnut
Street, Newark, NJ 07102 for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned Action ("Settlement") for consideration including
the sum of $4,000,000 ("Settlement Amount") should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of attorneys
for Lead Plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff's Counsel") for an award of
attorneys' fees of up to one-third plus interest of the Settlement
Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $180,000 and an
incentive payment of no more than $10,000 to Lead Plaintiff should
be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated April 13, 2022 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). The
Court may also hold the hearing telephonically or by
videoconference.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Immunomedics, Inc.
("Immunomedics") publicly-traded securities during the period from
May 2, 2016 through June 24, 2016, both dates inclusive (the
"Settlement Class Period"), you are a "Settlement Class Member" and
your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the
release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to
your ownership interest in Immunomedics securities. If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may download a copy at
www.strategiclaims.net/Immunomedics/ or obtain copies by contacting
the Claims Administrator at: Immunomedics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste.
205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax)
(610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net.

If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must electronically
submit a properly completed Proof of Claim by 11:59 p.m. on
December 6, 2022 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery. If you are unable to electronically
submit a Proof of Claim, you may mail a Proof of Claim at your own
expense. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked no later than December
6, 2022 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are
entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion
request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action
whether or not you make a claim.

If you want to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than December 29, 2022, in the manner and
form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment and the releases therein entered in the
Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received
no later than December 29, 2022, to each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
District of New Jersey
King Fed. Bldg. & United States Courthouse
50 Walnut St., Room 4015
Newark, New Jersey 07102

LEAD COUNSEL:
Bruce D. Greenberg
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102

Reed R. Kathrein
Wesley Wong
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:
Caryn G. Schechtman
DLA Piper LLP (US)        
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020

Kristin A. Pacio
DLA Piper LLP (US)
51 John F. Kennedy Parkway, Suite 120
Short Hills, NJ 07078

Albert H. Manwaring, IV
Morris James LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Plaintiff's Counsel:

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Reed Kathrein
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
reed@hbsslaw.com

LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
Bruce D. Greenberg
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: October 5, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


INLAND FRESH: Bolton Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
RANI BOLTON; ALISON MERCKER; JAMES ARMSTRONG; MELISSA SUTER; and
BENJAMIN LYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. INLAND FRESH SEAFOOD CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, INC.; JOEL KNOX; BILL DEMMOND; CHRIS ROSENBERGER; LES
SCHNEIDER; JAMES R. URBACH; and the INLAND FRESH SEAFOOD
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. ESOP COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-04602-AT (N.D. Ga., Nov. 18, 2022) alleges violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants caused the Inland Fresh
Seafood Corporation of America, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan
(the "Plan") to purchase the Company for $92 million, a massively
inflated number which dwarfed the Company's true value, based on
incomplete and misleading information presented to conflicted
valuation advisors without any semblance of an adequate process.

The $92 million Transaction price massively exceeded any offer the
Company had ever received for its acquisition, and substantially
outstripped the value the Company itself disclosed shortly after
the Transaction. The Defendants obtained the $92 million
Transaction price by intentionally and actively deceiving multiple
valuation advisors regarding the Company's assets and future
business prospects, benefiting themselves at the expense of the
Plan and its participants, says the suit.

INLAND FRESH SEAFOOD CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. processes and
distributes food products. The Company provides fresh, frozen,
smoked, and specialty seafood items. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley S. Wolff, Esq
          SWIFT CURRIE MCGHEE & HIERS, LLP
          1420 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 874-8800
          Facsimile: (404) 888-6199
          Email: brad.wolff@swiftcurrie.com

INTERNATIONAL DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MATIAS LOPEZ; MYNOR ISMAEL TOMAS PEREZ; NOE ARNOLDO LOPEZ
MIRANDA; CAMELIO JEREMIAS MATIAS LOPEZ; ELMAR ALEJANDRO MATIAS
LOPEZ; and MELVIN JOSIEAS TEMA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INTERNATIONAL DRYWALL,
INC.; and JUAN DIAZ LEMUS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07026
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022) is an action against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals
and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as drywall
installers.

INTERNATIONAL DRYWALL, INC. provides plastering, drywall, and
insulation services and installation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, N.Y. 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591

IRIS ENERGY: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Financial Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Richardson and Jessica Sier, writing for Australian Financial
Review, report that sin binned bitcoin miner Iris Energy faces a
potential US class action over allegations it misled investors and
overstated its financial position in a November 2021 initial public
offer that raised $US232 million from investors now wearing losses
of 94 per cent.

New York-based US law firm Pomerantz is investigating allegations
that Iris's founders and former Macquarie Group bankers William and
Daniel Roberts misled investors by making false or misleading
statements regarding the value of loans now totalling up to
$US107.8 million.

Daniel Roberts declined to comment on the potential class action,
which if it goes ahead, would be filed in the Southern District
Court of New York, as Pomerantz continues to solicit interest from
shareholders.

The potential legal action crowns a catastrophic fall for Iris,
which previously managed to attract an A-list of high-profile
Australian investors, including Phil King's Regal Asset Management,
Platinum Asset Management, Alex Waislitz's Thorney Opportunities,
Mike Cannon-Brookes' Grok Ventures, and Wilson Asset Management.

Pomerantz's draft court claim hones in on Iris conceding in a
November 2 statement that bitcoin mining equipment it acquired in a
trade financing deal is now worth significantly less than the
$US104 million its subsidiaries owed creditors for the hardware at
September 30, 2022.

In the statement, Iris said its subsidiaries won't make principal
repayments due on the outstanding loans as the bitcoin mining
equipment produces insufficient cash flow to service their
respective debt financing obligations.

Iris also said its debtors are wholly owned subsidiaries which are
legally structured as special purpose vehicles (SPVs), which means
the creditor New York Digital Investment Group (NYDIG) has no
financial recourse over parent company Iris Energy.

The mining hardware's market value plunged below the principal
amount of the loans in November 2022, after the bitcoin price lost
around 75 per cent over the past year.

In a November 21 statement filed with the US securities regulator
the SEC, Iris conceded that its creditors are now demanding
immediate payment of the loans in full under default notices
issued.

The stock plunged 18 per cent to $US1.55 on the news, with
Pomerantz publicising its potential claim for significant financial
compensation the same day. The law firm has prepared a draft court
claim against Iris seen by the Australian Financial Review.

Crypto winter
Bitcoin miners like Iris and fellow Australian-player Mawson
Infrastructure now operate in a tough environment, with horror
headlines over bankruptcies, plunging bitcoin prices, and soaring
energy bills pressuring their unit economics.

Other industry problems include a rapid advance in mining equipment
capability and a sharp uplift in the network hashrate - a term to
describe how difficult it is to solve the puzzles that mine
bitcoins.

Iris' decision to unplug some of its mining hardware in response to
its $US107.8 million default notice sparked a slump in the total
bitcoin hashrate across the network.

In turn, this delayed the confirmation of new blocks and the
generation of new bitcoins.

While Iris maintains it sells its bitcoin immediately and
irrespective of market price, not all miners do this.

Data by Glassnode, a crypto mining analysis service, shows that
bitcoin miners are dumping their holdings in droves, as they aim to
outrun the contagion caused by the FTX collapse. Bitcoin miner
selling pressure has jumped 400 per cent over the last three weeks,
according to Glassnode.

Iris' sustainable energy bills reached $US9300 per bitcoin mined in
October. For the financial year ending June 30, it reported
adjusted EBITDA (backing out certain costs) of $US16 million on
bitcoin mining revenue of $US59 million.

Its net loss ballooned to $US417 million after adjusting for losses
on convertible notes and derivatives that converted into shares
upon the group's problematic Nasdaq listing. [GN]

IRVINE COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC; REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL
ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.;
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC;
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC; THRIVE COMMUNITIES
MANAGEMENT, LLC; and SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., Case No.
8:22-cv-02113 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2022), is brought to challenge a
cartel among lessors of multifamily residential real estate leases
("Lessors") to artificially inflate the prices of multifamily
residential real estate in the United States above competitive
levels.

Beginning in 2016, and potentially earlier, Lessors replaced their
independent pricing and supply decisions with collusion. Lessors
agreed to use a common third party that collected real-time pricing
and supply levels, and then used that data to make unit-specific
pricing and supply recommendations. Lessors also agreed to follow
these recommendations, on the expectation that competing Lessors
would do the same.

That third party is RealPage, Inc. RealPage provides software and
data analytics to Lessors. RealPage also serves as the mechanism by
which Lessors collude and avoid competition, increasing lease
prices to Plaintiff and other members of the proposed Class.
RealPage openly boasts that its services "balance supply and demand
to maximize Lessors' revenue growth." And that is precisely what
RealPage has done, facilitating an agreement among participating
Lessors not to compete on price, and allowing Lessors to coordinate
both pricing and supply through two mutually reinforcing mechanisms
in furtherance of their agreed aim of suppressing price competition
for multifamily residential real estate leases.

First, Lessors "outsource daily pricing and ongoing revenue
oversight" to RealPage, replacing separate centers of independent
decision-making with one. While Lessors are able reject the
RealPage pricing through an onerous process, RealPage emphasizes
the need for "discipline" among participating Lessors. To encourage
adherence to its common scheme, RealPage explains that for its
services to be most effective in increasing rents, Lessors must
accept the pricing at least eighty percent of the time. These
efforts are successful, with a RealPage employee explaining that as
many as 90 percent (and at least 80 percent) of prices are adopted
by participating Lessors without any deviation.

Second, RealPage allows participating Lessors to coordinate supply
levels to avoid price competition. In a competitive market, there
are periods where supply exceeds demand, and that in turn puts
downward pressure on market prices as firms compete to attract
lessees. To avoid the consequences of lawful competition, RealPage
provides Lessors with information sufficient to "stagger" lease
renewals to avoid oversupply.

The conspiracy Plaintiff challenges is unlawful under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act. Plaintiff brings this action to recover their
damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other appropriate
relief, detailed infra, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has rented a multifamily residential unit in a
property now managed by Lessor Defendant Greystar Real Estate
Partners, LLC in Oceanside, California beginning in 2014.

RealPage provides software and services to the residential real
estate industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebecca A. Peterson (241858)
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          Email: rapeterson@locklaw.com


JABIL INC: Huynh Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Strong Huynh, as an individual, and on behalf of
all similarly situated employees v. JABIL INC.; and DOES 1 through
500, inclusive, Case No. 22CV020239 was removed from the Alameda
County Superior Court, State of California, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 23,
2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-07460.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges seven causes of action
against Defendant: Violation of Labor Code for failure to pay all
wages; meal period violations; rest period violations; failure to
pay wages due at separation of employment; failure to issue
accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify for
expenditures or losses in discharge of duties; and unfair business
practices. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that putative
class members are entitled to unpaid wages, meal and rest period
premiums, paid sick time, statutory penalties for late payment of
wages and inaccurate wage statements, interest, and attorneys'
fees, and expense reimbursements.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael J. Nader, Esq.
          Elizabeth D. Rhodes, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: 916-840-3150
          Facsimile: 916-840-3159
          Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
                 elizabeth.rhodes@ogletree.com


JACKPOCKET INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jackpocket Inc. The
case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Jackpocket Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-10010 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2022).

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

Jackpocket, Inc. -- https://jackpocket.com/ -- is an American
technology company headquartered in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


JP MORGAN: Sued Over Negligent Acts and Omissions
-------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-10019
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2022), is brought for damages and other relief
under (among other provisions of law) the United States federal
anti-sex trafficking statute, the Trafficking Victim Protection Act
("TVPA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), as well as for intentional and negligent acts and
omissions under the New York Adult Survivors Act.

The suit arises from Defendant, JP Morgan Chase & Co., financially
benefitting from participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking
by providing the requisite financial support for the continued
operation of Epstein's international sex trafficking organization
from 1998 through August 2013.

Morgan knowingly and intentionally benefited and received things of
value for assisting, supporting, facilitating, and otherwise
providing the most critical service for the Jeffrey Epstein sex
trafficking organization to successfully rape, sexually assault,
and coercively sex traffic Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 and the numerous
other members of the Class. JP Morgan knew that Epstein was
regularly committing violations of New York Penal Law, including,
and especially, New York Penal Law and acted in a negligent manner
so as to enable Epstein to commit such offenses against countless
young women.

JP Morgan also knew that Epstein would use means of force, threats
of force, fraud, abuse of legal process, exploitation of power
disparity, and a variety of other forms of coercion to cause young
women and girls to engage in commercial sex acts. Knowing that they
would earn millions of dollars from facilitating Epstein's sex
abuse and trafficking, JP Morgan chose profits over following the
law. Specifically, JP Morgan chose facilitating a sexual abuse and
sex trafficking operation for many years, including through the
criminal investigation and incarceration of Jeffrey Epstein, in
order to churn profits, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 is using a pseudonym to protect her
identity because of the sensitive and highly personal nature of
this matter, which involves sexual assault.

JP Morgan is a global financial institution headquartered
in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley J. Edwards, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC
          425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954)-524-2820
          Fax: (954)-524-2822
          Email: brad@epllc.com

               - and -

          Brittany N. Henderson, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER
          1501 Broadway, Floor 12
          New York, New York
          Phone: (954)-524-2820
          Fax: (954)-524-2822
          Email: brittany@epllc.com

               - and -

          David Boies, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, New York
          Phone: (212) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
          Email: dboies@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Phone: (954) 356-0011
          Facsimile: (954) 356-0022
          Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com


KAV HEALTH: Court OK's Bid to Stay Pending 6th Cir. Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDYN MCLEMORE, et al.,
vs. KAV HEALTH GROUP, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00155-TMR-CHG (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Caroline H. Gentry entered an order granting
the Defendant's motion to stay pending decision by Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals.

In this putative Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action
and Rule 23 class action, the Defendant argues that the Court
should stay these proceedings because a controlling legal issue in
this case -- 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.,
Case Nos. 22-3101 and 22-3102.

The Court notes that Brook Clark was terminated as a Plaintiff and
the lead Plaintiff on appeal is Larry Holder. Therefore, some
courts refer to these cross-appeals as the Holder case. To be
consistent with the nomenclature used by the Sixth Circuit, the
undersigned will refer to these cross-appeals as the Clark case.

The Court recognizes, however, that a stay of proceedings could
prejudice Plaintiffs and potential opt-in plaintiffs due to the
running of the statute of limitations. Therefore, the Court will
grant Plaintiffs' alternative request for equitable tolling of the
statute of limitations for Plaintiffs and all potential opt-in
plaintiffs.

Kav Health is a drug rehab facility in Blue Ash, Ohio.

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

KEVIN DAVIS: Plan of Allocation Submitted by Lead Counsel OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS
NATIONAL PENSION FUND, and JUAN FRANCISCO NIEVES, as Trustee of the
Gonzalez Coronado Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. KEVIN DAVIS and AMIR ROSENTHAL, Case No.
1:16-cv-03591-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods
entered an order that:

  -- The Plan of Allocation submitted by Lead Counsel, as
     described in the Notice, is approved as fair, reasonable
     and adequate.

  -- In the event that the Effective Date of the Settlement does
     not occur or the Settlement is terminated pursuant to its
     terms, then this Judgment shall be rendered null and void
     to the extent provided by and in accordance with the
     Stipulation.

The Notice and the Summary Notice advised Class Members of the
date, time, place and purpose of the Final Approval Hearing, and
further advised that any objections to the Settlement were required
to be filed with the Court and served on counsel for the Settling
Parties by October 28, 2022.

The Court has considered all matters submitted to it at the Final
Approval Hearing and all papers filed and proceedings had herein
and otherwise being fully informed in the premises and good cause
appearing therefore.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3i8Zamuat no extra charge.[CC]

L'OREAL USA: Faces Class Action Over Benzene in Redken Dry Shampoo
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges L'Oreal's Redken dry shampoo is contaminated
with "dangerously high levels" of benzene, a carcinogenic impurity
linked to leukemia and other cancers.

The 24-page complaint says Redken dry shampoo is not designed to
contain benzene, and in fact "no amount of benzene is acceptable"
in the products. The case alleges the benzene contamination renders
the Redken dry shampoos adulterated and misbranded under state and
federal law.

"As a result, the Products are unsafe and illegal to sell under
federal law, and therefore worthless," the suit states.

Although the labels on bottles of Redken dry shampoo list the
products' active and inactive ingredients, no mention is made of
benzene, a component of crude oil, gasoline and cigarette smoke,
the lawsuit stresses. The case alleges L'Oreal thus misrepresents
that the dry shampoos do not contain the dangerous impurity, or
otherwise fails to disclose that the products may contain benzene.


Consumers would not have bought the products, or would have paid
much less for them, had L'Oreal disclosed that they contained or
risked containing benzene, the filing says.

According to the complaint, the United States Department of Health
and Human Services has determined that benzene causes cancer in
humans, and the Food and Drug Administration likewise lists the
substance as a Class I solvent that should not be used in the
manufacture of drug products due to its "unacceptable toxicity."

Further, the World Health Organization has stated that human
exposure to benzene has been linked to acute and long-term health
problems and diseases, the suit adds.

From there, the lawsuit explains that independent laboratory
Valisure, whose mission is to "independently check the chemical
composition of medications and healthcare products before they
reach consumers," tested for certain chemical qualities in various
brands of dry shampoo in October and detected "high levels" of
benzene in batches of certain brands, including L'Oreal's Redken.
According to the complaint, the Redken products tested by Valisure
were found to contain as much as 7.55 parts per million (ppm) of
benzene, well above the legal limit of 2 ppm for drug products with
a "significant therapeutic advance."

Regardless, the suit says, Redken dry shampoo is not designed to
contain benzene, and since it is not a drug product, any
significant detection of benzene is considered unacceptable.

The filing stresses that a cosmetic product is considered
adulterated under federal law if it "bears or contains any
poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to
users."

"The presence of benzene renders the Products adulterated and
misbranded," the suit says. ". . . [B]enzene is a poisonous and
deleterious substance that has been linked to cancer and is
dangerous at any level. The Products were also manufactured in such
an insanitary [sic] way that they became contaminated with benzene.
Thus, the Products are adulterated."

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in the United States who
bought L'Oreal's Redken dry shampoo for personal or household use
within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]

L'OREAL USA: Faces Class Action Over Hair Straighteners, Relaxers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that L'Oreal
and SoftSheen Carson face a proposed class action over the
companies' alleged failure to disclose that some of their
over-the-counter hair straightener and/or relaxer products contain
chemicals known to be harmful to human health.

More specifically, the 46-page lawsuit out of Michigan alleges
certain Dark & Lovely and Optimum Smooth products, among others,
are adulterated with toxic endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs)
known to increase the risk of endometriosis, abnormalities in
reproductive organs, various cancers, altered immune and nervous
system function, respiratory problems, diabetes, and neurological
and learning disabilities, among other serious health problems.

The presence of EDCs, such as DEHP and other phthalates, in the
L'Oreal and SoftSheen Carson products at issue is especially
concerning given that the chemicals in hair relaxers and
straighteners are absorbed and metabolized through direct contact
with the skin, the lawsuit relays. Often, hair relaxers and
straighteners can cause burns and lesions on the scalp, which can
exacerbate the entrance of the chemicals into the body, the filing
says.

According to the case, neither L'Oreal nor SoftSheen Carson
disclosed the presence of EDCs in their toxic hair straightening
products -- creams, lotions and/or oils -- prior to sale.
Generally, the hormonally active and carcinogenic compounds known
to cause endocrine disruption are not listed as separate
ingredients on a hair relaxer/straightener's label but are often
"broadly lumped into the 'fragrance' or 'perfume' categories," the
lawsuit says.

Per the case, the use of hair straighteners and relaxers is "more
commonplace" for Black and Brown women than any other race, and in
some studies, up to 90 percent of Black and Brown women reported
using the products. The filing contends that the defendants have
access to "a wealth of scientific information" on the long-term use
of hair relaxers, straighteners, and dyes containing certain EDCs.
This information "should have alerted the manufacturers of these
products to the specific and dangerous harms associated with their
products when used as intended, particularly in women of color,"
the case states.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals linked to uterine cancer, other
health issues, suit says
According to the case, chemicals that disrupt the functioning of
the endocrine system, which influences nearly every cell, organ and
process within the body, can result in a host of negative health
effects, including cancer.

The case explains that the endocrine system is comprised of glands
that produce and release precise amounts of hormones, such as
estrogen, testosterone, progesterone and other androgens, that bind
to receptors located on specific target cells throughout the body.
When a hormone binds to a target cell's receptor, the suit says,
the receptor carries out the hormone's instructions, either
switching on or off specific biological processes in cells, tissues
and organs. In this way, the endocrine system regulates a person's
biological processes from conception through adulthood, the suit
states.

The filing stresses that it is critical that the body's endocrine
system maintain hormonal balance, as even slight variations in
hormone levels can produce significant health effects.

According to the case, endocrine-disrupting chemicals can "act
directly on hormone receptors as mimics or antagonists, or on
proteins that control hormone delivery." In other words, EDCs can
alter the body's "hormonal homeostasis" by "mimicking" natural
hormones, blocking hormone receptors, and increasing or decreasing
hormone levels, the suit elaborates.

In particular, EDCs that mimic the effects of estrogen may
contribute to an increased risk of disease given that exposure to
the hormone is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer,
uterine cancer, ovarian cancer and other types of hormone-sensitive
cancers, the lawsuit states.

"A woman's lifetime risk of developing these hormone-sensitive
cancers increases with greater duration and cumulative exposure,"
the filing reads.

According to the lawsuit, other potential health effects of EDCs
can include:

Endometriosis;
Abnormal reproductive tract formation;
Decreased sperm count and viability;
Pregnancy loss;
Abnormal puberty onset;
Developmental abnormalities;
Infertility; and
Metabolic syndrome.

L'Oreal, SoftSheen products are "misbranded," case claims
The case charges that the L'Oreal and SoftSheen Carson hair
straighteners and relaxers at issue are essentially adulterated
with EDCs -- and thus misbranded and illegal to sell given that
their labels do not disclose the presence of the dangerous
chemicals. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), a
cosmetic is considered adulterated if it or its packaging contains
any "poisonous or deleterious substance" that can injure a user,
the complaint shares.

Per the case, since there is "no safe level" of exposure to EDCs,
the chemicals are "unsuitable for human application" as ingredients
in hair straighteners or relaxers.

"In short, under the current regulatory framework in the United
States, it is incumbent upon the manufacturers of cosmetic
products, and them alone, to assess the safety and efficacy of
their products, and to warn consumers anytime a health hazard may
be associated with their products," the complaint reads.

Who's covered by the lawsuit?
The case looks to represent all consumers nationwide who bought any
hair straighteners or hair relaxers made by L'Oreal or
SoftSheen-Carson in the United States or its territories (excluding
California) at any time between November 8, 2016 and the present.

I use L'Oreal/SoftSheen-Carson products. How do I get involved?
When a proposed class action is initially filed, there's nothing
you need to do to join, add your name to, or sign up for the
lawsuit. That's because it's only if and when a class action
settles that the "class members," i.e., the people who are covered
by the case, will need to act. This usually involves filling out
and filing a claim form online or by mail.

It may be a while before we get there, if we ever do, given that
these types of lawsuits tend to take some time to work through the
legal process, usually toward a settlement, dismissal or
arbitration.

If you've bought any L'Oreal and/or SoftSheen Carson hair
straighteners or relaxers, or just want to stay in the loop on
class action lawsuit and settlement news, sign up for
ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN]

L. L. BEAN: Garcia Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping in Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L. L. BEAN, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 37-2022-00046730-CU-MT-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., Nov. 17, 2022) alleges violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant secretly
wiretaps the private conversations of everyone who communicates
through the chat feature at www.llbean.com (the "Website"). The
Defendant also allows third party to eavesdrop on such
communications in real time and during transmission to harvest data
for financial gain.

The Defendant does not obtain visitors' consent to either the
wiretapping or the eavesdropping. As a result, Defendant has
allegedly violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

L. L. BEAN, INC. provides recreational, apparel, and home products.
The Company offers hunting, fishing, clothing, footwear, outdoor
equipment, handbags, briefcases, bags and travel, home goods, rugs,
kitchen, decor, mats, furniture, shirts, pants, sweaters, skirts,
tops, toys, knives, and footwear products. L. L. Bean serves
customers globally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LAKE MICHIGAN: Cook Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brad Cook and Hannah Ritzenhein, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAKE MICHIGAN
CREDIT UNION Case No. 2:22-cv-12074 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for Eastern District of Michigan, to the U.S.
District Court for Western District of Michigan on Nov. 17, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01065-JMB-SJB to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act to Collect Unpaid Wages.

Lake Michigan Credit Union -- https://www.lmcu.org/ -- operates as
a financial cooperative. The Union provides financial solutions
such as loans, investment, deposit accounts, insurance, security,
credit and debit cards, online banking, and other related
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Phone: (213) 788-4050
          Fax: (213) 788-407
          Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Haba Korkees Yono, Esq.
          Matthew S. Disbrow, Esq.
          HONIGMAN LLP (DETROIT)
          2290 First National Bldg.
          660 Woodward Ave.
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Phone: (313) 465-7372
          Fax: (313) 465-7373
          Email: mdisbrow@honigman.com
                 mradler@honigman.com


LAMPSUSA LLC: Joint Pretrial Order Proposal Extended to Dec. 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMEN TAVAREZ-VARGAS, V.
LAMPSUSA, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10813-JGK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge John G. Koeltl entered an order extending the time to file a
proposed joint pretrial order to December 9, 2022.

If the parties do not intend to file a joint pretrial order, the
parties are directed to submit a letter apprising the Court of the
status of this action by the same deadline.

On April 9, 2022, this Court entered a scheduling order directing
the parties to file any dispositive motions by October 7, 2022; to
complete class certification briefing by November 4, 2022; and to
submit a proposed joint pretrial order by November 18, 2022. To
date, none of those submission have been made, the Court says.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3iawZn6at no extra charge.[CC]


LAUNDRESS LLC: Skillman Sues Over Deceptive, Misleading Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meaghan Skillman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Laundress, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-10008-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2022), is brought to remedy
the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant
with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of
Defendant's cleaning products (hereinafter the "Products")
throughout the state of New York, Florida, and throughout the
country.

The Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled
and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff,
by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that
consumption of the Products may increase the risk of contracting
invasive infections.

The Products contain Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which could lead to
serious and life-threatening adverse health consequences. The risk
of serious infection is also particularly concerning for
immunocompromised individuals that are highly susceptible to life
threatening diseases and even death from Pseudomonas aeruginosa
ingestion. This is egregious, especially because people are
spreading this bacteria all over their homes by using a product
that is supposed to clean their home. The Defendant specifically
lists both the active and inactive ingredients of the Products on
the labeling; however, the Defendant fails to disclose that the
Products contain, or are at the risk of containing, Pseudomonas
aeruginosa.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is recognized to be an incredibly dangerous
and life-threatening substance, specifically for immunocompromised
individuals, and especially in the context of inhalation and skin
ingestion. Insofar as Pseudomonas aeruginosa made its way into
Defendant's Products on purpose, it should have been listed on the
Products labeling. Consumers like the Plaintiff trust manufacturers
such as Defendant to sell products that are safe and free from
harmful known substances, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

The Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false,
deceptive, and misleading because the Products do contain, or risk
containing, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which is dangerous to one's
health, well-being, and even life. Nevertheless, the Defendant does
not list or mention Pseudomonas aeruginosa anywhere on the
Products' packaging or labeling. Had the Defendant not made the
false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions
regarding the contents of the Products, the Plaintiff would not
have been willing to purchase the Products, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's Delicate Wash and Wool &
Cashmere Shampoo Products.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes
the Products throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (845) 483-7100
          Fax: (888) 749-7747
          Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Gary Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          221 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com


LIBERTY LATIN: Continues to Defend VTR Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Liberty Latin America Ltd. 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 from the VTR Class Suit.

VTR Class Action. On August 25, 2020, VTR was notified that SERNAC
had filed a class action complaint against VTR in the 14th Civil
Court of Santiago.

The complaint relates to consumer complaints regarding VTR's
broadband service and capacity during the pandemic and raises
claims regarding, among other things, VTR's disclosure of its
broadband speeds and aggregate capacity availability and VTR's
response to address the causes of service instability during the
pandemic.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit, in
particular as it relates to VTR's service and response during the
pandemic.

Liberty Latin America Ltd. provides various telecommunications
services. Its services primarily include video, broadband Internet,
fixed-line telephony, and mobile services. Liberty Latin America
Ltd. was incorporated in 2017 and is based in Denver, Colorado.


LOYAL SOURCE: Briefing Sched for Class Cert Continued in Diaz
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBEKAH DIAZ, an
individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT SERVICES LLC., a
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-04316-DMG-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee
entered an order granting joint motion to continue deadline to
amend, and to class certification briefing schedule:

  -- The deadline for the Parties to amend the pleadings and/or
     add additional parties to the case is continued from
     November 14, 2022 to March 14, 2023;

  -- The briefing schedule for Plaintiff's Motion for Class
     Certification is continued as follows:

     -- Plaintiff's Motion for Class        Aug. 25, 2023
        Certification is due to be
        filed on or before:

     -- Defendant's Opposition to           Sept. 22, 2023
        Plaintiff's Motion for
        Class Certification is
        due to be filed on or
        before:

     -- The Plaintiff's Reply is            Oct. 6, 2023
        due to be filed on or before:

     -- The Plaintiff's Motion for          Oct. 20, 2023
        Class Certification shall be
        heard on:

Loyal Source is a leading provider of Healthcare and IT/Engineering
recruiting services nationwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tYYSkwat no extra charge.[CC]

LUCID GROUP INC: Continues to Defend Mangino and Goel Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucid 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 in the Mangino and Goel Class Suits.

On April 1, 2022 and May 31, 2022, two alleged shareholders filed
putative class actions under the federal securities laws against
Lucid Group, Inc. and certain officers of the Company relating to
alleged statements, updated projections and guidance provided in
the late 2021 to early 2022 timeframe. The complaints, which were
filed in the Northern District of California, are captioned Victor
W. Mangino v. Lucid Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02094-JD,
and Anant Goel v. Lucid Group, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-03176-JD.

The two matters were consolidated into one action, entitled In re
Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 22-cv-02094-JD.
The complaints name as defendants Lucid Group, Inc. and the
Company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer, and
generally allege that defendants purportedly made false or
misleading statements regarding delivery and revenue projections
and related matters.

The complaints in these actions seek certification of the actions
as class actions, as well as compensatory damages, interest
thereon, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously, but the Company cannot
ensure that defendants' efforts to dismiss the complaint will be
successful or that it will avoid liability in these matters.

Lucid Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LCID) is an American electric vehicle
manufacturer headquartered in Newark, California. The company was
founded in 2007. Deliveries of the Dream Edition launch versions
were made available to the first group of 20 reservation holders on
October 30, 2021.


LUCID GROUP INC: Taylor Shareholder Derivative Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lucid 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 Taylor
Shareholder Derivative Suit is ongoing.

In addition, on July 11, 2022, a purported shareholder of the
Company filed a shareholder derivative action, purportedly on
behalf of the Company, against certain of the Company's officers
and directors in California state court, captioned Floyd Taylor v.
Glenn August, et al., Superior Court, Alameda County, Case No.
22CV014130.

The complaint also names the Company as a nominal defendant. Based
on allegations that are similar to those in the In re Lucid Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation action, the Taylor complaint asserts
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of
corporate assets and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company is
advancing defendants' fees and expenses incurred in their defense
of the actions.

At this time, the Company does not consider any such claims,
lawsuits or proceedings that are currently pending, individually or
in the aggregate, including the matters referenced above, to be
material to the Company's business or likely to result in a
material adverse effect on its future operating results, financial
condition or cash flows should such proceedings be resolved
unfavorably.

Lucid Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LCID) is an American electric vehicle
manufacturer headquartered in Newark, California. The company was
founded in 2007. Deliveries of the Dream Edition launch versions
were made available to the first group of 20 reservation holders on
October 30, 2021.

LUCKIN COFFEE: $7MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 31, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Berger Montague PC and Shapiro
Haber & Urmy LLP issued a statement regarding the Luckin Coffee
Inc. Securities Litigation:

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION

In re LUCKIN COFFEE INC.

SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:

Index No. 651939/2020

CLASS ACTION

THE CONSOLIDATED ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED

SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES (AND THEIR BENEFICIARIES) WHO, AT ANY
TIME, PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED LUCKIN COFFEE INC. ("LUCKIN")
CONVERTIBLE NOTES ISSUED ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 10, 2020 (THE
"CONVERTIBLE NOTES") AND WHO DID NOT RELEASE CLAIMS BASED ON THEIR
PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION OF THE CONVERTIBLE NOTES IN CONNECTION WITH
LUCKIN'S NOTEHOLDER SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT, OR OTHERWISE
("SETTLEMENT CLASS" OR "SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS")

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on January 31,
2023, at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Andrew Borrok, Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York: Commercial
Division, 60 Centre Street, Courtroom 238, New York, NY 10007, to
determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement")
of the above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $7,000,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the
Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (3)
to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of
the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below),
and, if so, in what amount; (4) to award Plaintiffs for
representing the Settlement Class out of the Settlement Fund and,
if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

This Action is a consolidated securities class action brought on
behalf of those persons who purchased or acquired Luckin
Convertible Notes, against Luckin and certain of its current and
former officers and directors and the Convertible Notes
underwriters (collectively, "Defendants") for, among other things,
allegedly misstating and omitting material facts from the
Prospectus filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the offering of the Convertible Notes.
Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED LUCKIN CONVERTIBLE NOTES, YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than January
30, 2023) or electronically (no later than January 30, 2023). Your
failure to submit your Proof of Claim by January 30, 2023, will
subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of
the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If
you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not request
exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not
limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement
documents, online at www.LuckinConvertibleNotesSettlement.com, or
by writing to:

Luckin Convertible Notes Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 6177
Novato, CA 94948-6177

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:

Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 800-449-4900
  
Michael C. Dell'Angelo
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-875-3000
  
Edward F. Haber
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
Two Seaport Lane
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: 617-439-3939

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY
DECEMBER 27, 2022, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
ALL MEMBERS OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED
EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT
EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES,
AND/OR THE AWARDS TO PLAINTIFFS FOR REPRESENTING THE SETTLEMENT
CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD
COUNSEL AND LUCKIN'S COUNSEL BY DECEMBER 27, 2022, IN THE MANNER
AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED:  OCTOBER 7, 2022

    BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION

1 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.LuckinConvertibleNotesSettlement.com.


LYFT INC: Continues to Defend Multiple Putative & Derivative Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lyft 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 from multiple derivative and putative class
actions.

Beginning in April 2019, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions have been filed in state and federal courts
against the Company, its directors, certain of its officers, and
certain of the underwriters named in the IPO Registration Statement
alleging violation of securities laws, breach of fiduciary duties,
and other causes of action in connection with the IPO.

The putative class actions have been consolidated into two putative
class actions, one in California state court and the other in
federal court. The derivative actions have also been consolidated
into one action in federal court in California.

On July 1, 2020, the California state court sustained in part and
overruled in part the Company's demurrer to the consolidated
complaint.

The Company filed its answer to this consolidated complaint on
August 3, 2020. On February 26, 2021, the California state court
struck additional allegations from the consolidated complaint and
granted plaintiffs leave to amend, and plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on March 17, 2021.

The Company filed its demurrer and motion to strike the amended
claim on April 13, 2021, and on July 16, 2021, the California state
court overruled the demurrer but struck additional allegations from
the consolidated complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
The state court plaintiffs filed their renewed motion to certify a
class action on June 24, 2021, and on January 25, 2022, the court
denied plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice and stayed the case
in light of the certified class action proceeding in federal court.


In the California federal court class action, on May 14, 2020, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on
September 8, 2020, the federal court granted in part and denied in
part that motion.

The Company filed its answer to this consolidated complaint on
October 2, 2020, and the court certified the class action on August
20, 2021, and set trial to commence on December 5, 2022.

On February 8, 2022, the parties informed the court they had
reached an agreement in principle to settle the case on a
class-wide basis, and the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement on June 16, 2022.

On August 19, 2022, the putative lead plaintiffs in the California
state court action filed a motion to intervene in the California
federal court class action for purposes of challenging the proposed
class action settlement.

In response, the parties in the federal case submitted an amended
stipulation of settlement on September 27, 2022 which now allows
the state plaintiffs to opt-in to the federal class for purposes of
objecting to the settlement, which rendered the motion to intervene
moot.

The federal parties' motion for preliminary settlement approval
remains pending.

In the consolidated derivative action, at the parties' joint
request, the California federal court stayed the case on February
17, 2021.

Although the Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them, the Company has accrued
amounts related to such matters when a loss is probable and
reasonably estimable and the expense is recorded to general and
administrative expenses.

Lyft Inc. offers mobility as a service, ride-hailing, vehicles for
hire, motorized scooters, a bicycle-sharing system, rental cars,
and food delivery in the United States and select cities in
Canada.


MACHHAL J&P: Delgado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Lopez Delgado, individually, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated employees v. Machhal J&P Construction Inc.
and Jita Ram Case No. 1:22-cv-07173 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2022), is
brought for unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage orders pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the
N.Y. Lab. Law, and overtime wage orders of the New York Commission
of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs.

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

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendants.

The Defendants own, operate or control a construction company
located in Street Queens Village, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          Toneille Raglan, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL PC
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-203-2417
          Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com


MAKER WINE COMPANY: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maker Wine Company.
The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Maker
Wine Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-09927 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Maker -- https://www.makerwine.com/ -- is the highest-rated canned
wine, ever who prioritizes minimal intervention, vintage and
vineyard-designate wines, that represent time and place.[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


MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA FRANKIEWICZ and
RUTH PEREZ, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly
Situated Individuals, v. MANHATTAN CRYOBANK, INC., and CNTP MCB,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05157-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules Civil Procedure with respect to Plaintiffs'
claims under New York Law, together with such other and further
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Manhattan Cryobank is a sperm bank that uses the genetic screening
technology.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MASSACHUSETTS: Sued Over COVID-19 Contact-Tracing Spyware
---------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn M. Rattigan, Esq., of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, reports that a lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts for its use of a COVID-19 contact-tracing app for
residents' mobile phones. However, very few residents voluntarily
downloaded the app. The solution? The lawsuit alleges that
Massachusetts caused the app to be downloaded to certain residents'
mobile devices without consent or knowledge. The complaint alleges
that "on June 15, 2021, [the Massachusetts Department of Public
Health (DPH)] worked with [a third party application developer] to
secretly install the Contact Tracing App onto over one million
Android mobile devices located in Massachusetts without the device
owners' knowledge or permission." The complaint further alleges
that "[w]hen some Android device owners discovered and subsequently
deleted the App, DPH would re-install it onto their devices. The
App causes an Android mobile device to constantly connect and
exchange information with other nearby devices via Bluetooth and
creates a record of such other connections. If a user opts in and
reports being infected with COVID-19, an exposure notification is
sent to other individuals on the infected user's connection
record."

The complaint also alleges that the app collected information about
the user's travel, social interactions and internet usage. The app
was installed as a "settings feature" instead of an "applications
file" in order to remain unnoticed.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments
to the U.S. Constitution, Articles XIV and X of the Massachusetts
Declaration of Rights, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The
class seeks an injunction against continued use of the spyware and
an order requiring the DPH to remove the spyware from users' mobile
devices. The class also seeks to recover attorneys' fees and $1 for
symbolic damages. [GN]

MAZDA MOTOR: Dissemination of Notice to Class Members Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY SONNEVELDT ESTHER
WRIGHT SCHNEIDER, BRIAN HUME, JEAN LEVASSEUR, CHRISTOPHER LACASSE,
TIM HALWAS, ERIN MATHENY, LEWIS DELVECCHIO, JON SOWARDS, LAWRENCE
BOHANA, MONIKA BOHANA, DAVID DENNIS, and JACQUELINE S. ASLAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MAZDA
MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. D/B/A MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS AND
MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, Case No. 8:19-cv-01298-JLS-KES (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order
approving notice of class certification to class members.

The Court hereby appoints JND Legal Administration to serve as the
Class Notice Administrator for this matter.

The Notice Administrator is given all necessary and appropriate
authority to effectuate the Class Notice Plan.

Specifically, the Court authorizes the Notice Administrator through
data aggregators or otherwise, to request, obtain and utilize
vehicle registration information from the Department of Motor
Vehicles for California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio,
Texas, and Virginia for the purposes of obtaining the identity of
and contact information for current and former owners of Class
Vehicles.

The Court finds that the proposed form and manner of notice to
class members satisfies the requirements of due process and
comports with the mandates of Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure
23(c)(2)(B).

The short form notice shall be sent by Plaintiffs through the
Notice Administrator via U.S. mail to the address of each 27
current and former owner of a Class Vehicle who registered their
vehicles in 1 California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio,
Texas, or Virginia (the seven states which have had a class
certified), which addresses will be obtained by the Notice
Administrator from the relevant agencies.

The short form notice should not require class members who opt out
to provide a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), but may request a
VIN from those members.

   -- Opt Out Deadline:

      All requests for exclusion from the Class must be in
      writing and received by the Notice Administrator no later
      than 150 days from the issuance of this Notice Order, but
      not less than 45 days from the date that the Summary
      Notice is provided via first-class postal mail to exclude
      themselves from the Classes in the manner described in the
      Summary and Long Form Notices.

   -- Attorney Appearances:

      Any attorney hired by a Class Member must make their
      appearance in this case no later than 150 days from the
      issuance of this Notice.

   -- Non-Substantive Changes to Notices:

      Non-substantive changes to the forms of notice approved in
      this Order may be made by the Plaintiffs.

Mazda North American Operations, which includes Mazda Motor of
America, Inc., is Mazda Motor Corporation's North American arm, and
constitutes the largest component of that company outside Japan.
The company has its headquarters in Irvine, California.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AHvLWFat no extra charge.[CC]

MCKESSON MEDICAL: Maldonado Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Edelmira Maldonado, individually and on behalf
of other persons similarly situated v. MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL
INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. CIV
SB 2215953 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 23,
2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-08585.

On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed an unverified Class Action
Complaint against the Defendant which sets forth the following 8
causes of action: failure to provide meal periods; failure to
provide paid rest periods; failure to pay wages; failure to timely
pay wages at termination/separation; failure to timely pay vacation
wages at termination; failure to provide accurate wage statements;
failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair
competition.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mia Farber, Esq.
          Nicky Jatana, Esq.
          Buck N. Haddix, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Phone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          Email: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
                 Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com
                 Buck.Haddix@jacksonlewis.com


MCKINSEY & COMPANY: BCTGM Atlantic Sues Over Opioids Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
BCTGM Atlantic Health & Welfare Fund, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-07348-CRB (N.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2022), is brought concerning
McKinsey's work for Purdue and its owner, the Sackler family,
beginning at least as early as 2004, and in particular McKinsey's
work in the years after the 2007 guilty plea relating to Purdue's
sales and marketing strategy for its opioids.

McKinsey had an ongoing relationship with Purdue beginning at least
as early as 2004 and lasting decades. By June 2009, McKinsey was
advising Purdue on precisely the same sales and marketing strategy
and practices for OxyContin that were the subject of the Agreement.
McKinsey continued this work after the expiration of the Agreement
and at least through November 2017.

McKinsey has recently been the subject of scrutiny for its various
business practices, including its work facilitating the opioid
crisis for Purdue. On March 7, 2019, Kevin Sneader, McKinsey's
global managing partner, addressed all McKinsey employees regarding
this scrutiny. Weeks later, McKinsey announced that it is no longer
working for any opioid manufacturer. The Plaintiff now argues that
the price for being in the arena is more than scrutiny, however
fair.

This Complaint argues that, like any other participant in the
arena, McKinsey is liable for its deeds. McKinsey is liable for its
successful efforts to increase OxyContin sales after Purdue's 2007
guilty plea for misbranding the drug. Indeed, McKinsey's mandate
was to increase the sales of the drug in light of the fact that
Purdue had plead guilty to misbranding, and the owners of Purdue
now wished to exit the opioid market due to the perceived
reputational risks of remaining there.

McKinsey's task was to thread the needle: to increase OxyContin
sales given the turbocharging strictures imposed by the five-year
Agreement. This McKinsey did, the sales of a drug it knew fully
well was addictive and deadly, while paying at least tacit respect
to the Agreement. These managerial acrobatics were necessary for
Purdue to seem financially attractive enough that a potential buyer
would be willing to discount (or even overlook) the otherwise
obvious risks associated with purchasing the maker of OxyContin.
Purdue was the proverbial hot potato. The Sackler family hired
McKinsey to help them hand it to someone else. McKinsey obliged and
devised a successful strategy to purposefully increase the amount
of OxyContin sold in the United States. Their efforts tripled
OxyContin sales. In the end, of course, the Sacklers never sold
Purdue, and no one loaned it money. In time, the full scope of the
opioid crisis would be clear not only to experts, insiders, and
industry participants, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff BCTGM indirectly purchased, paid, and/or reimbursed
for opioids intended for consumption by its participants, covered
dependents, and retirees and their families.

McKinsey is a worldwide management consultant company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aelish M. Baig, Esq.
          Taeva Shefler, Esq.
          Hadiya K. Deshmukh, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415/288-4545
          Fax: 415/288-4534
          Email: aelishb@rgrdlaw.com
                 tshefler@rgrdlaw.com
                 hdeshmukh@rgrdlaw.com


MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Allen Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Allen, et al., v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-02930 (D.S.C., Filed Aug. 12,
2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to
stage class certification briefing.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:

    (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;

    (2) Invasion of Privacy;

    (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
        1798.100, et seq.;

    (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
        Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;

    (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
        Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;

    (6) New York's General Business Law section 349.

The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."

Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.

During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.

The Allen case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA
BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972).The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.

The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.

The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.

Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3V2ID23at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Eisen Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Philip Eisen v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04358 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F.
Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part
the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:

    (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;

    (2) Invasion of Privacy;

    (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
        1798.100, et seq.;

    (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
        Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;

    (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
        Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;

    (6) New York's General Business Law section 349.

The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."

Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.

During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.

The Eisen case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA
BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972).The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.

The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.

The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.

Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3iaOq75at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Martin Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03286 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson,
Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:

    (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;

    (2) Invasion of Privacy;

    (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
        1798.100, et seq.;

    (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
        Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;

    (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
        Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;

    (6) New York's General Business Law section 349.

The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."

Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.

During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.

The Martin case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972).The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.

The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.

The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.

Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EDuDVgat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Mortensen
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mortensen v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04042 (D.S.C., Filed Nov. 20, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class
certification briefing.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:

    (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;

    (2) Invasion of Privacy;

    (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
        1798.100, et seq.;

    (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
        Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;

    (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
        Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;

    (6) New York's General Business Law section 349.

The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."

Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.

During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.

The Mortensen case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972).The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.

The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the
personal information of consumers doing business with entities
served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services.

The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.

Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XvwIviat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Sloane Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sloane v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04380 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 17, 2020 ), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification
briefing.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:

    (1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;

    (2) Invasion of Privacy;

    (3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
        1798.100, et seq.;

    (4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
        Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;

    (5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
        Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;

    (6) New York's General Business Law section 349.

The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."

Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.

During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.

The Sloane case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972).The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.

The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the
personal information of consumers doing business with entities
served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services.

The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.

Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gDUDb3 at no extra charge.[CC]

MEIJER INC: Bridges Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lashan Bridges, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Meijer, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01112 (W.D. Mich., Nov.
23, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop the
Defendant's false and misleading labeling practices with regard to
its three percent hydrogen peroxide solution identified as an
antiseptic promoted "For Treatment of Minor Cuts and Abrasions"
under the Meijer brand ("Product").

The representation the Product should be used "For Treatment of
Minor Cuts and Abrasions" tells consumers it will assist in healing
by shortening healing time, when this statement is false,
misleading, and not authorized by any applicable body.

In the context of first aid, an antiseptic is a chemical with
antimicrobial activity, applied to the skin to help prevent
infection in minor cuts, scrapes, and burns. Following its
discovery in the 1920s, hydrogen peroxide was used for a range of
unrelated conditions including typhoid, diphtheria, bowel
infections, eczema, epilepsy, influenzal pneumoniae, bladder
infections, and even as an intravenous source of oxygen during
cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, Alexander Fleming
discovered that wounds treated with antiseptics like hydrogen
peroxide had higher death rates and slower healing than wounds not
treated at all.

Though one company submitted labeling for hydrogen peroxide which
stated, "For treatment of minor cuts and abrasions" the FDA never
endorsed this labeling because its abilities were limited to
cleaning a cut by mechanical removal of debris and reducing the
number of bacteria. According to the Mayo Clinic, the FDA, and
numerous medical studies, hydrogen peroxide does not treat minor
cuts and abrasions because no evidence supports a connection
between the number of bacteria and reduction in healing time of a
clean wound.

The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with
respect to the Product which are false and misleading. As a result
of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at
a premium price, approximately no less than $1.29 for 32 fl oz,
excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products represented
in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for
absent the misleading representations and omissions, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product between May 2022 and June
2022.

Meijer, Inc. is a Michigan corporation with a principal place of
business in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Kent County.[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

MERCEDES BENZ: Stipulation to Vacate Class Cert Deadlines Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORY HAZDOVAC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, and DOES MBUSA 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00377-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate to
vacate the current class certification deadlines, pending a
rescheduled mediation with (Ret.) Judge Gandhi, now scheduled to
take place on February 23, 2023.

The mediation originally was scheduled for November 9, 2022 but was
rescheduled to permit additional time to prepare for the mediation
given, among other things, Plaintiff's detailed settlement proposal
and the complexity of the issues involved.

Mercedes-Benz is a Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor for
passenger cars in the United States, headquartered in Sandy
Springs, Georgia. that sells cars from the Mercedes-Benz brand.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 432-8492
          E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
                  abasser@pomlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Troy M. Yoshino, Esq.
          Eric J. Knapp, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          475 Sansome Street, 16th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 954-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 393-9887
          E-mail: troy.yoshino@squirepb.com
                  eric.knapp@squirepb.com

MERCEDES-BENZ AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Emission Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Dowling at goauto.com.au reports that a class action has been
filed in the Victorian Supreme Court against Mercedes-Benz for
diesel-engined vehicles made by the company for the model years
2009 to 2018.

Australian compensation law firm Gerard Malouf and Partners (GMP
Law) said that the action relates the emission levels of certain
Mercedes diesel models. A summary statement was lodged with the
Supreme Court of Victoria as 'The Mercedes-Benz Emissions Group
Proceeding' (Paul Wawryk and Craig Stubbings v Mercedes-Benz
Australia/Pacific Pty Ltd and Mercedes-Benz Group AG).

Messrs Wawryk and Stubbings are the lead plaintiffs and purchased
Mercedes-Benz vehicles in 2016 and 2013 respectively.

The summary said: "The Mercedes-Benz Emissions Group Proceeding
claims damages and other remedies against Mercedes-Benz
Australia/Pacific Pty Ltd and Mercedes-Benz Group AG arising out of
the use of alleged 'defeat devices' (or defeat device-equivalents)
in obtaining the certification of various Mercedes-Benz diesel
engine models as meeting regulatory standards for emissions."

"The lead plaintiffs allege that the engines did not, in fact, meet
the requirements that Mercedes-Benz Australia/Pacific Pty Ltd and
Mercedes-Benz Group AG said they did."

The statement said that group members of the claim "are any persons
(including companies) who between January 1 2009 and November 22,
2022 purchased or leased in Australia a diesel vehicle which meets
the specifications (of a table)."

The table lists Mercedes-Benz vehicles fitted with engine models OM
607 (2009-2016, 1.5-litre A-Class, B-Class and Citan van); OM 622
(2009-2016, 1.6-litre C-Class); OM 626 (2009-2016, same as 622); OM
640 (2009-2016, 2.0-litre, A-Class); OM 642 (2009-2016, 3-litre V6,
various Mercedes, Jeep and Chryslers); and OM 651 (2009-2016 and
including Sprinter van model years 2009-2018, 1.8 and 2.1-litre for
models including A, B, C, E, GLA, CLA and Vito).

The statement to the court said "costs that the lead plaintiffs and
the defendants are likely to incur in the course of the
Mercedes-Benz Emissions Group Proceeding are likely to be
substantial if the action is defended."

GMP Law said in its statement that past or present owners of
affected Mercedes diesel vehicles, either new or second-hand,
manufactured on or after January 1, 2008 until December 31, 2018
"may be eligible class members and entitled to significant damages
per vehicle which could include a portion of the purchase price."

It said it has "entered an information sharing arrangement with
leading US class action law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
(HB) in relation to this Class Action against  Mercedes. HB had
conducted a similar Class Action against Mercedes for Diesel
Emissions in the U.S., which settled in September 2020 in the
amount of around $1.3 billion."

GMP Law chairman Gerard Malouf said the information sharing
arrangement between HB and GMP Law "is a great step forward towards
achieving just compensation for those consumers in Australia …"

He said that the class action "will seek damages for compensation
for the loss of value of affected vehicles and punitive damages."

"GMP Law has recently filed a similar Class Action against Hino
Motor Sales Australia and Hino Motors Limited."

GoAutoNews Premium contacted Mercedes-Benz Australia which said in
a statement: "Whilst we have seen certain media reports regarding a
potential class action, we have not yet received any court
documents in relation to this matter.

"Based on information observed in media reports, we believe the
claims are without merit and we would strongly defend any such
legal proceedings." [GN]

MICHAELS STORES: Crawford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michaels Stores
Procurement Company, Inc. The case is styled as Curtis Crawford, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc.,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0010787 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Michaels -- https://www.michaels.com/ -- offers products for home
decor, framing, scrapbooking and more.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Norman Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
          Phone: 858-551-1223
          Fax: 858-551-1232
          Email: norm@bamlawca.com


MIDWEST DIVISION: Class Action Settlement in Marquez Initially OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMIE MARQUEZ, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MIDWEST
DIVISION MMC, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02362-DDC-ADM (D.
Kan.), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Crabtree entered an order granting
the plaintiffs' "Renewed and Consolidated Unopposed Motion for
Order Preliminarily Approving Class and Collective Action
Settlement, Attorneys' Fees Award, Litigation Costs, Settlement
Administrator, and Class Representative Service Awards and
Directing Notice to the Class and Scheduling Final Fairness
Hearing".

   -- The court directs the parties to provide notice to the
      class and collective action members, consistent with the
      Order.

   -- The court schedules a Final Settlement Approval Hearing on
      February 9, 2023.

The Plaintiffs Tammie Marquez, Neesha Perez, and Josiah Chumba are
registered nurses (RNs) who worked for entities affiliated with HCA
Healthcare. Plaintiffs bring class and collective action claims
against the defendants for unpaid compensation and related
penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
and the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA). Also, invoking Kansas
common law, plaintiffs assert class claims for unjust enrichment
and quantum meruit claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

The court finds that the proposed settlement satisfies the other
Rule 23(e) factors as well. First, the class representatives and
class counsel have represented the class adequately, as Rule
23(e)(2)(A) requires. As our court has observed, other courts "have
analyzed the adequacy of representation" under Rule 23(e)(2)(A) "by
evaluating adequacy under Rule 23(a)(4)."

The proposed settlement agreement provides adequate relief for the
class as Rule (e)(2)(C) requires. As the court already has
explained, the litigation involves serious questions of law and
fact that place the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt.

Thus, the court finds that the parties' proposed settlement of the
KWPA claims is "fair, reasonable, and adequate," as Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e)(2) requires. The court thus approves the parties' proposed
settlement preliminarily under Rule 23(e)

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3F16WrCat no extra charge.[CC]

MOMENTUM CAPITAL: Cardero Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Momentum Capital
Group LLC. The case is styled as Mauricio Cardero, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Momentum Capital
Group LLC doing business as: Get Working Capital, Case No.
1:22-cv-23804-BB (S.D. Fla., Nov. 21, 2022).

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

Momentum -- https://www.momentumcapitalfunding.com/ -- is a
debt-free company with a proven track record of sustainable growth,
making us a reliable financial partner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Chagas Gold, Esq.
          1547 Brooksbend Drive
          Wesley Chapel, FL 33432-33543
          Phone: (561) 789-4413
          Email: chris@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: gberg@shamisgentile.com
                 ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


MONSANTO CO: Judge Ordered $37.5-M Deal in Chemical Pollution Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kip Hill at spokesman.com reports that the city of Spokane is
expected to receive "several million dollars" from a legal
settlement with the parent company of Monsanto over the
decades-long production of chemicals that have polluted the Spokane
River.

U.S. District Court Judge Fernando M. Olguin, of the Central
District of California, signed an order Nov. 19 awarding 2,442
government entities nationwide a portion of a $537.5 million
settlement in a class action brought against Monsanto. The company
for years sold products containing polychlorinated biphenyls, or
PCBs, that leached into the Spokane River and other waterways. The
products were sold under the brand name Aroclor, which was
discontinued in the 1970s. But the PCBs do not break down naturally
and remain in the waterway.

A preliminary agreement to settle the lawsuit had been filed in
June 2020, but it took more than two years for the parties to
submit a compensation plan to which Olguin could agree.

Parties have until the middle of December to notify the court
whether they will opt out of the settlement and seek a deal on
their own, said Marlene Feist, public works director for the city
of Spokane. That could change the calculation for how much Spokane
will receive, but the total should be "several million dollars,"
she said.

"We're excited about the whole area, that the community is getting
money for this," Feist said, noting that payments will also be made
to Spokane County and the city of Spokane Valley.

Spokane is one of the named plaintiffs in the case, after initially
filing a lawsuit against the former agrichemical giant in November
2015. In that lawsuit, the city alleged Monsanto was responsible
for the high level of PCBs found in the Spokane River, findings
that have already prompted years of protracted legal arguments
between the city and different presidential administrations about
the acceptable level of the chemicals in water discharged to the
Spokane River, primarily through stormwater.

"PCBs are one of the largest water contaminants in the world," said
John Fiske, co-lead of class counsel in the action for the firm
Baron & Budd that litigated the case on behalf of Spokane and other
cities. "These funds are intended to monitor and remove PCBs from
stormwater that contaminates water."

The money from the settlement is divided into different sums for
specific purposes. Of the total amount, $250 million has been set
aside for governments that have incurred costs to meet what are
known as total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs, for the chemical in
their waterways. The Environmental Protection Agency is in the
process of establishing a TMDL for dischargers into the Spokane
River as part of a legal agreement in a lawsuit brought by several
conservation groups. The deadline is September 2024.

Bayer AG, a German company, finished its acquisition of Monsanto
for $63 billion in 2018 and has been defending in several legacy
lawsuits against Monsanto and its products in the intervening
years. Reuters reported in September that Bayer had won five
consecutive jury trials seeking damages related to the weedkiller
Roundup and claims it caused cancer.

Feist said once the city knows exactly how much it's getting, City
Hall can begin to make plans on projects the dollars could fund.
The target will be stormwater runoff, and the city already has
begun work to address pollution coming from the Cochran basin, an
area of north Spokane where stormwater runoff still feeds directly
into the river without being treated.

"We have a lot of options," Feist said. "It's not like it has to be
on one specific project, it just needs to mitigate the harm."

Feist said the money could be spent "over a few years." [GN]

MONTREAL, QC: To Pay $3-M Settlement to Maple Spring Protesters
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the City of Montreal will pay more
than $3 million to hundreds of protesters whose rights were
violated by city police.

The settlement will end eight long-running class action lawsuits
against the city that allege participants in six protests were
illegally arrested or detained by police and were unable to
exercise other fundamental rights.

The law firm representing class members said earlier in a
court-approved notice that the city will also publish an apology on
its website acknowledging that "certain actions" by city police and
the municipal administration violated protesters' fundamental
rights.

The protests, which took place between June 2012 and March 2014,
included marches against police brutality and a city bylaw limiting
protests, as well as a demonstration on the one-year anniversary of
the beginning of student protests against tuition increases.

The settlement still needs to be approved by Quebec Superior Court.
A hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 21.

The City of Montreal has agreed to pay a total of $6 million to
settle the eight lawsuits as well as eight other similar class
actions. [GN]

MOTION MEDIA: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Motion Media, LLC.
The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Motion Media, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-10011 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2022).

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

Motion Media, LLC -- https://www.motionmedia.com/ -- is a value
added reseller of 3D animation, VFX, editing, compositing, and
design software and hardware solutions for the film, tv, games,
architectural and design visualization markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


MZI CHERRY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Anderson Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CALEB ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. MZI
Cherry Corp., and Merwais Popal, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06915
(E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2022) alleges the Defendants of violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the
NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a prep cook and general worker at the
Defendants' restaurant located at 2504 Flatbush Ave., Brooklyn, NY
11234 from approximately May 2022 to, through and including the
present date. Throughout his employment with the Defendants, he was
paid $12 per hour for all hours worked.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to
compensate him and other similarly situated employees with the
applicable minimum hourly wage;

     -- The Defendants failed to keep and/or track records of the
hours worked by him and other similarly situated employees;

     -- The Defendants failed to post any notices regarding their
wages;

     -- The Defendants did not provide them with wage statement;
and

     -- The Defendants did not give any notice to them of their
rate of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such other information
as required by NYLL.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief, for himself and all other
similarly situated employees, and to recover unpaid minimum wages
liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems just
and proper.

MZI Cherry Corp., doing business as Halal Bros Grill, operate a
restaurant owned by Merwais Popal. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Tel: (212) 792-0046
          E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Groves Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES W. GROVES; and JUDITH BARTELL-GROVES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a RIGHTPATH SERVICING, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-02072-PAG (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 17, 2022) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, offers
mortgage services. The Company provides mortgages loan,
re-financing, and home equity loans. Mr. Cooper serves client in
the state of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Daniel M. Solar, Esq.
          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          Michael A. Smith, Jr.,Esq.
          DANN LAW
          15000 Madison Avenue
          Lakewood, OH 44107
          Telephone: (216)373-0539
          Facsimile: (216)373-0536
          Email: notices@dannlaw.com

NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Golden Sues Over Video Privacy Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHERHONDA GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-09858 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2022) alleges
violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's claims arise from the
Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta
Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook"), data containing the Plaintiff's and
other digital-subscribers Class Members' (i) personally
identifiable information or Facebook ID ("FID") and (ii) the
computer file containing video and its corresponding URL viewed
("Video Media") (collectively, "Personal Viewing Information").

The Defendant violated the VPPA by disclosing its digital
subscribers' identities and Video Media to Facebook without the
proper consent, says the suit.

NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC operates as a media and entertainment
company. The Company develops, produces, and markets entertainment,
news, and media information. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 494-3531
          Email: mmurphy@baileyglasser.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
          Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                 aflorek@peifferwolf.com

NESTLE USA: Judge Recommends Dismissal of 401(k) Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Ortolani, writing for PlanSponsor, reports that a U.S.
District Court federal magistrate judge in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin has recommended the dismissal of a class action lawsuit
brought by a plan participant against Nestlé USA Inc. on Nov. 21.


A participant of the plan filed the class action complaint on
October 9, 2020, alleging that Nestlé and its board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by actions that include charging
excessive fees for managed account services and self-dealing in
their administration of the plan.

Most of the plaintiff's allegations against Nestlé's $4.2 billion
401(k) savings plan fell short of meeting the requirements to move
the case forward, Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Dries wrote in the
recommendation. He did, however, say that two counts related to the
level and quality of recordkeeping services have merit, suggesting
the plaintiff amend them and refile with the court.

The United States district judge assigned to the case, William C.
Griesbach, referred it to Dries for his recommendation. The parties
now have fourteen days to object to the recommendation for
Griesbach to consider and make his a decision.

The initial lawsuit alleged in part that a managed account service
offered by Voya Retirement Advisors included additional fees that
added no more material value for participants than its cheaper
target-date fund option. Dries noted in the recommendation that the
plaintiff had never participated in the managed account services
and was never charged any fees related to those services.

The plaintiff's complaint also alleged that Nestle paid itself for
providing administrative service that did not provide any value to
the plan, was not provided for the exclusive benefit of the
participants and did not warrant the payment of the fees. The
plaintiff alleged the services could have been provided by the
plan's recordkeeper.

Dries argued that the complaint did not contain any
"non-speculative" allegations as to why Nestle received the
payments for the services. He also found that the plaintiff failed
to prove that the services provided no value to the plan and failed
to prove that Nestle was acting as a fiduciary to the plan at the
time.

The lawsuit also alleged that Nestle failed to adequately monitor
recordkeeping and administrative fees and regularly solicit pricing
quotes or bids from providers. Dries said the plaintiff did not
prove a so-called "breach of loyalty" to participants, but that
there is enough context to make the claim admissible if recast.

"The gist of these new allegations is that, for very large plans
like the Nestle plan . . . recordkeeping services are essentially
fungible -- that is, the services are essentially the same no
matter who provides them," he wrote. "Thus, the proposed amendment
-- which alleges that the fees were excessive relative to the level
and quality of recordkeeping services received . . . -- provides
the necessary context to make this claim plausible."

Nestle did not respond to request for comment. [GN]

NETWORK RECOVERY: Berger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Network Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Shlome Berger, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Network Recovery
Services, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-06736 (D.N.J., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Network Recovery Services, Inc. operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization offers insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NIKE INC: Averts Gender Discrimination Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Burnson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Nike Inc.
female workers who accuse the company of gender discrimination
failed to persuade a federal magistrate they should be allowed to
join together to sue the athletic shoe maker as a group.

Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo in Portland, Oregon, recommended
that the women's request for class-action status be denied, but her
findings were sealed from public view, court records show.

Russo's recommendation will be reviewed by US District Judge Marco
A. Hernandez, according to the docket. The parties have 14 days to
file objections to Russo's findings. [GN]



NISSAN NORTH: Faces Schwarz Class Suit Over Obsolete 3D Modems
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE SCHWARZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00933
(M.D. Tenn., Nov. 16, 2022) is a class action complaint on behalf
of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all similarly situated persons
who purchased or leased Nissan and Infiniti branded vehicles which
were manufactured with a 3G modem.

The 3G modem is an obsolete piece of telematics equipment for the
indicated model years: LEAF model years 2016-2017, Altima model
years 2016-2017, GT-R model years 2017-2018, Maxima model years
2016-2017, Murano model year 2017, Pathfinder model year 2017,
Rogue model years 2016-2017, Rogue Sport model years 2017-2018,
Sentra model years 2016-2018, TITAN model years 2016-2017, TITAN XD
model year 2017, Infiniti Q50 model years2014–2018, Infiniti Q60
model years 2017–2018, Infiniti Q70 model years 2013–2018,
Infiniti QX30 model years 2017–2019, Infiniti JX model years
2013–2017, Infiniti QX60 2013–2017, Infiniti QX56 model years
2013–2017, and Infiniti QX80 model years 2013–2017 (the
Class Vehicles).

This action is brought to remedy violations of law in connection
with Defendant's manufacture, marketing, advertising, selling,
warranting, and servicing of the Class Vehicles. Accordingly, the
Class Vehicles were not in merchantable condition and the modem was
not in merchantable condition and were not fit for the ordinary
purpose for which cars with installed telematics equipment are used
because the inevitable decommissioning of AT&T's outdated 3G
network would render the vehicle modem nonfunctional, says the
suit.

In March 2022, Mr. Schwarz noticed that his NissanConnect Services
were not working. Upon startup, his vehicles' consoles showed a
screen asking him if he would like to connect to NissanConnect.
Even when he selects “yes,” the car icon in the upper
right-hand corner of the telematics screen has a red line crossing
across, indicating a lack of data connection, Mr. Schwarz claims.

Nissan refused to offer any repair or upgrade of the 3G modem as a
warranty repair. As a result of Nissan's misconduct, Plaintiff and
the other Class members were each injured on account of receiving
Class Vehicles that were fundamentally different from what they
believed they were purchasing, less valuable than was represented,
and less valuable than what they actually received, added the
suit.

Nissan North designs, develops, and manufactures Nissan vehicles
and distributes them through dealers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin H. Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 434-7000
          Facsimile: (615) 434-7020
          E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com

                - and -

          Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
          Christopher Stiner, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505-4521
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com

                - and -

          Andrew Ferich, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com

NUVE MIGUEL: Hernandez Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot  
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARITO HERNANDEZ
SANTOS, v. NUVE MIGUEL CORP., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01335-RWL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger entered an order
denying as moot without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification pursuant to FRCP 23, to reinstatement in the event
the settlement does not receive final approval.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the
motion.

Nuve Miguel is a SNAP retailer that accepts New York Common Benefit
Identification Cards at 170 W 97th St New York NY.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GMMV9gat no extra charge.[CC]

OAKBEND MEDICAL: Faniel Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tahjae Faniel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OAKBEND MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 4:22-cv-04092 (S.D.
Tex., Nov. 23, 2022), is brought arising out of the recent targeted
cyberattack and data breach ("Data Breach") on the Defendant's
networks that resulted in unauthorized access to highly sensitive
patient data.

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and 500,000 Class
Members, suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of
the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value
of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects
of the attack, emotional distress, and the imminent risk of future
harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal
information. In addition, the Plaintiff and Class Members'
sensitive personal information--which was entrusted to the
Defendant, its officials, and its agents—was compromised and
unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach.

Information compromised in the Data Breach includes names,
addresses, email addresses, date of birth, Social Security Numbers,
("PII"), and medical information ("PHI"). The PII and PHI that
Defendant collected and maintained will be collectively referred to
as the "Private Information." The Defendant maintained the Private
Information in a negligent and/or reckless manner. In particular,
the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer
system and network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated to address the Defendant's inadequate
safeguarding of her and Class Members' Private Information that the
Defendant collected and maintained, and for Defendant's failure to
provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class
Members that their Private Information had been subject to the
unauthorized access of an unknown third party, and identify
precisely what specific type of information was accessed, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, resident, and a citizen of the
State of Texas who entrusted her Private Information to the
Defendant.

OakBend Medical Center provides medical services in Houston and
surrounding areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. Thompson, Esq.
          THOMPSON LAW LLP
          3300 Oak Lawn Ave., 3rd Floor
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 755-7777
          Facsimile: (214) 716-0116
          Email: rthompson@triallawyers.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
          Phone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          Email: 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
          Phone: (501) 372-1300
          Email: chris@yourattorney.com
                 nathan@yourattorney.com


OAKWOOD UNIVERSITY: Diaz Files Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oakwood University,
Inc. The case is styled as Frances Diaz, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oakwood University,
Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01844-L-MDD (S.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Oakwood University -- https://oakwood.edu/ -- is a historically
Black Seventh-day Adventist institution of higher learning that
provides quality Christian education.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
          Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12th St., Ste. 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Phone: (510) 709-5839
          Email: cab@colevannote.com
                 lvn@colevannote.com
                 sec@colevannote.com

OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Faces Lilien Suit Over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE LILIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OLAPLEX HOLDINGS, INC.; JUE WONG; ERIC
TIZIANI; TIFFANY WALDEN; CHRISTINE DAGOUSSET; TRICIA GLYNN; DEIRDRE
FINDLAY; JANET GURWITCH; MARTHA MORFITT; DAVID MUSSAFER; EMILY
WHITE; MICHAEL WHITE, and PAULA ZUSI, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-08395 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 17, 2022) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of all persons and entities other than the
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Olaplex common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or around September 30, 2021 (the "IPO" or
"Offering"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Offering Documents
filed by the Defendant with the Securities and Exchange Commission
were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and was not
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its
preparation.

The Offering Documents made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) macro-economic pressures and
competition in the haircare market were more robust than the
Company had represented to investors; (ii) accordingly, the Company
was unlikely to maintain its sales and revenue momentum; and (iii)
as a result, it was unlikely that the Company would be able to
achieve the financial and operational growth projected in the
Offering Documents; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents
were materially false and misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein, says the suit.

As of the time this complaint was filed, the price of Olaplex
common stock continues to trade below the Offering price of $21.00
per share, allegedly damaging investors. As a result of Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of Olaplex's securities, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit
added.

OLAPLEX HOLDINGS INC. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, manufactures and retails hair care
products such as shampoos, conditioners, oils, and smoothers.
Olaplex Holdings serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

OLD AJ INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Old AJ, Inc. The case
is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Old AJ, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09902
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022).

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

Old AJ, Inc. provides jewelry products. The Company offers wedding
and engagement rings, bands, customized jewelry, diamonds, and
other products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OLD DOMINION: Davis Suit Alleges Mismanagement of Retirement Plans
------------------------------------------------------------------
HARVEY L. DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00990 (M.D.N.C., Nov. 18, 2022) alleges violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant selected
and retained for the Old Dominion 401(k) Retirement Plan (the
"Plan") high priced investments when the identical investments were
available to the Plan at a fraction of the cost. The Defendant's
imprudence caused the Plan and its participants to wrongfully lose
roughly $3 million in retirement savings over the course of the
relevant time period.

The Defendant's mismanagement of the Plan constitutes a breach of
the fiduciary duty of prudence in violation of ERISA. The
Defendant's actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable
fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of
dollars, says the suit.

OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC. is an inter-regional and
multi-regional motor carrier. The Company primarily transports
less-than-truckload shipments of general commodities, such as
consumer goods, textiles, and capital goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norris J. Matthew, Esq.
          NORRIS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1776 Heritage Center Drive, Suite 204
          Wake Forest, NC 27687
          Telephone: (919) 981-4475
          Facsimile: (919) 926-1676
          Email: matt@lemonlawnc.com

               - and -

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 337-7992
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
                 lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 aheystek@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Mckay, Esq.
          MCKAY LAW, LLC
          5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170
          Scottsdale, AZ 85250
          Telephone: (480) 681-7000
          Email: mmckay@mckaylaw.us

               - and -

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

OLIVIA ROSING: KAOH Media Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned KAOH Media Enterprises, LLC, KELLY O'NEILL, and
ALLAN HUG, Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants v. OLIVIA ROSING, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Defendant and
Counterclaimant, Case No. 22SL-CC04096 was removed from the Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Nov. 24, 2022, and
assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-01258.

This case arises out of an employment relationship between Rosing
and KAOH Media Enterprises, LLC. KAOH Media Enterprises, LLC, and
its principals, individual Counter-Defendants Kelly O'Neill and
Allan Hug, are residents of Missouri. Defendant and
Counterclaimant, Olivia Rosing, is a resident of Louisiana. On
September 19, 2022, Plaintiff KAOH Media Enterprises, LLC, filed a
contract action arising out of the same facts and employment
relationship. Not knowing of the pending case in Missouri, on
September 21, 2022, Olivia Rosing filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

The Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron E. Schwartz, Esq.
          Kelley F. Farrell, Esq.
          CAPES, SOKOL, GOODMAN & SARACHAN, P.C.
          8182 Maryland Avenue, Floor 15
          St. Louis, Missouri 63105
          Email: schwartz@capessokol.com
                 farrell@capessokol.com

The Defendant and Counterclaimant is represented by:

          Alicia I. Dearn, Esq.
          7253 Watson Rd PMB 1164
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Phone: (314) 887-1100
          Fax: (314) 887-1101
          Email: alicia@dearnlaw.com


ORACLE CORP: Class Settlement to be Heard on January 12, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re Oracle Corporation Securities
Litigation

CLASS ACTION   Case No. 18-cv-04844-BLF

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND
(III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:  All persons and entities who purchased or acquired the common
stock of Oracle Corporation during the period from May 10, 2017
through June 20, 2018, inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the
"Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities who
are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the full
printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiff in the Action has
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $17,500,000 in cash
(the "Settlement") that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action.

A hearing will be held on January 12, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, either in person in
Courtroom 3 – 5th Floor of the Robert F. Peckham Federal Building
& United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA
95113, or by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the
Court), for the following purposes: to determine whether: (1) the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 23, 2022 (and in
the Notice), should be granted; (3) the proposed Plan of Allocation
should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) the application
of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of 20% of the
Settlement Fund (or $3,500,000, plus interest) and payment of
litigation expenses of up to $900,000 from the Settlement Fund,
which may include the expenses of Lead Plaintiff directly related
to its representation of the Class, should be approved.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet received the
Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator at Oracle Securities
Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173035, Milwaukee, WI
53217; (877) 354-3810; or info@OracleSecuritiesLitigation.com.
Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.OracleSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online, no later than
February 3, 2023.  If you are a Class Member and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than December 22, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be filed with the Court no later
than December 22, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Oracle, or its
counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
(800) 380-8496 (toll free)
settlements@blbglaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Oracle Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173035
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(877) 354-3810 (toll free)
www.OracleSecuritiesLitigation.com
                                                                   
                                                    By Order of the
Court

Source:
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP


PANDUIT CORP: Asante-Appiah Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIANNE ASANTE-APPIAH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PANDUIT CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-06311 (N.D. Ill., November 11, 2022) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the payment provisions of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a salaried Client
Success Manager (CSM) from November 2015 until the present.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated CSMs were classified by the Defendant as exempt from the
overtime requirements of the FLSA. Despite regularly working more
than 40 hours per week, the Defendant denied them of overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Additionally, the Defendant did not keep track and/or records of
the hours worked by its CSMs because the Defendant did not have a
timekeeping system, says the suit.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated CSMs, the
Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney's fee and all costs connected with this action,
and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Panduit Corp. develops and provides physical infrastructure
solutions to businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Krista Sheets, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: krista@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

PEREGRINE ENTERPRISES: Appeals Ruling in Brown Suit to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Enterprises, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANGELA BROWN, RAINA BIGHAM,
NATASHA BRADBURY, LAUREN FARANO, TERESA LEJA, GISELLE LUZA, KAYLA
URENA, KAYLE RODRIGUEZ, LESLIE TEJEDA, YANA TOYBER, SUSANA VARGAS,
ASHLEY VENECIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PEREGRINE ENTERPRISES, INC. dba RICK'S
CABARET NEW YORK; RCI ENTERTAINMENT (NEW YORK) INC.; RCI
HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC. fka RICK'S CABARET INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
RCI MANAGEMENT SERVICES; ERIC LANGAN; ED ANAKAR; DOE MANAGERS 1-3;
and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01455, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 1, 2022, the
complaint is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
including failure to pay minimum wage, unlawful taking of tips,
illegal kickbacks, and forced tip sharing.

On May 24, 2022, the Court granted Defendants' motion to stay this
case pending arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims addressed to Judge
Katherine Polk Failla from Jeffrey A. Kimmel dated May 23, 2022.

On August 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay.


On September 2, 2022, the Defendants filed a cross motion to strike
Plaintiffs' collective action claims and for appointment of a
substitute arbitrator.

On November 3, 2022, for the reasons set forth in the Court's oral
decision delivered on November 3, 2022, the Court GRANTED
Plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay in this case and DENIED
Defendants' cross-motions to strike Plaintiffs' collective action
claims and for appointment of a substitute arbitrator. The parties
were ORDERED to submit a joint letter to the Court proposing next
steps in this case by December 2, 2022.

The Defendants seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Brown v. Peregrine Enterprises,
Inc. dba Rick's Cabaret New York, et al., Case No. 22-2959, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on
Nov. 15, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Peregrine Enterprises, Inc., a New York
Corporation, DBA Rick's Cabaret New York, et al., are represented
by:

          Jeffrey A. Kimmel, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 880-3800

Plaintiffs-Appellees Angela Brown, an individual; individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented
by:

          John Kristensen, Esq.
          CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
          8827 W. Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 507-7924

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Rottenberg Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Simon Rottenberg,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-10001
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2022).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc., specializes in working with people in debt repayment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christofer Merritt, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com


POSHMARK INC: Bushansky Sues Over False and Misleading Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. POSHMARK, INC., MANISH CHANDRA, NAVIN CHADDHA, JENNY
MING, EBONY BECKWITH, JEFF EPSTEIN, HANS TUNG, and SERENA J.
WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:22-cv-07373 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2022), is
brought for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC"), and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant
to which Poshmark will be acquired by NAVER Corporation through
NAVER's subsidiaries Proton Parent, Inc. ("Proton Parent") and
Proton Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the "Proposed
Transaction").

On October 3, 2022, Poshmark and NAVER issued a joint press release
announcing entry into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated October
3, 2022 (the "Merger Agreement") to sell Poshmark to NAVER. Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Poshmark stockholder will
receive $17.90 in cash for each share of Poshmark common stock (the
"Merger Consideration"). The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $1.2 billion.

On November 15, 2022, Poshmark filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary
Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that Poshmark stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits, or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: Company management's
financial projections; the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by
the Company's financial advisor Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
("Goldman"); and the background of the Proposed Transaction
Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading
Proxy Statement in violation of the Exchange Act.

In short, unless remedied, Poshmark's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed
Transaction. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the
Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations
are cured, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of Poshmark.

Poshmark operates as a social marketplace for new and secondhand
style products in the United States, Canada, India, and
Australia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins (SBN 256020)
          WEISS LAW
          611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 310/208-2800
          Facsimile: 310/209-2348
          Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com


POSTER HOUSE: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Poster House, Inc.
The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Poster House, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09904 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022).

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

Poster House -- https://posterhouse.org/ -- is the first museum in
the United States dedicated exclusively to posters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


POW! ENTERTAINMENT: $950,000 Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RICHARD NORWOOD                                                    


Plaintiff,   v.   STAN LEE,                                        
            
Defendants.

C.A. No.: 2018-0056-KSJM   CLASS ACTION    

SUMMARY NOTICE

IF YOU WERE A RECORD HOLDER OR BENEFICIAL OWNER OF POW!
ENTERTAINMENT, INC. WHO HELD OR OWNED SHARES ON OCTOBER 23, 2017,
YOU COULD GET A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.

A Court authorized this notice. This is only a summary. More
information is available at
www.POWEntertainmentMergerSettlement.com or by calling
1-833-577-2697.

A Settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit regarding
the agreement and plan of merger ("Merger Agreement") entered into
by POW! Entertainment, Inc. ("POW"), First Creative International
Limited ("First Creative") and Camsing Entertainment International,
Inc. ("Merger Sub" and collectively with First Creative,
"Camsing"), pursuant to which Camsing acquired all outstanding
shares of POW (the "Merger"). The Settlement provides for a payment
of $950,000 (the "Settlement Amount") into a Settlement Account for
distribution, after deducting any attorneys' fees awarded by the
Court and Notice and other Administrative Costs, to eligible
members of the Class on a pro rata basis.1 If you held Eligible
Shares you may qualify for a cash payment. "Eligible Shares" means
shares of POW common stock held or owned as of October 23, 2017
(the Merger's closing date). You can also comment on the
Settlement.

Who is in the Class?

You are a Class Member if you held or owned POW common stock on
October 23, 2017. Defendants, members of the immediate family of
any Defendant, any entity in which a Defendant has or had a
controlling interest, and legal representatives, heirs, successors
in interest, transferees and assigns of any such excluded person or
entity, are not Class Members. Also excluded from the Class is any
Person who exercised their appraisal rights under Section 262 of
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware and their
respective successors-in-interest, successors,
predecessors-in-interest, predecessors, representatives, trustees,
executors, administrators, estates, heirs, assigns and transferees,
immediate and remote, and any person or entity acting on behalf of,
or claiming under, any of them, are not Class Members.

What is this About?

The Court in charge of the case is the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "Court"), and the case is called Norwood v.
Lee, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0056-KSJM. The lawsuit generally alleges
that Defendants Stan Lee ("Lee") and Gill Champion ("Champion"), in
their capacities as the alleged controlling stockholders of POW and
the sole members of POW's Board of Directors (the "Board" or the
"Defendants"), breached their fiduciary duties to POW stockholders
by engaging in a flawed sale process, designed to extract benefits
for both Defendants and Camsing, including post-close employment,
post-close equity stakes, and the transfer of Merger-related costs,
to the detriment of POW stockholders. Defendants vigorously deny
each of these allegations and all liability and damages.

What does the Settlement Provide?

In consideration for the full and final Settlement, and the release
by the Class Members of any and all Released Plaintiff Claims,
Defendants have agreed to pay the total sum of $950,000 into a
Settlement account for distribution, after deducting any attorneys'
fees awarded by the Court and notice and other Administrative
Costs, to eligible members of the Class on a pro rata per share
basis.

How do I ask for a Payment?

If you are eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you
do not have to submit a claim form or take any other action in
order to receive your payment. Your distribution from the
Settlement will be paid to you directly. To get a detailed Notice,
visit the website or call the number listed below.

What are my Other Options?

You can comment on or object to the Settlement if you choose or you
may hire your own lawyer, at your own cost, to comment on the
Settlement for you. If the Settlement is approved, you will not be
able to sue the Defendants regarding the Released Plaintiff Claims
ever again.

You are not required to hire your own attorney. The Court appointed
lawyers to represent you. These lawyers will seek approval for
payment of fees and expenses from the Settlement Fund. You will not
be responsible for paying these lawyers.

The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing at 1:30 p.m. on December
9, 2022, via Zoom. The Court will consider, among other things, (i)
whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, (ii) how
much to pay Class Counsel, (iii) whether to approve an award to the
Class Plaintiff, and (iv) whether to approve allocation of the
Settlement Fund. If there are objections, the Court will consider
them.

For more information visit:
www.POWEntertainmentMergerSettlement.com or call 1-833-577-2697


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Horowitz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, LLC. The case is styled as Devorah Horowitz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional
Claims Bureau, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-09959 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22,
2022).

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

Professional Claims Bureau Inc. -- https://www.pcbinc.org/ -- is a
collection agency located in Garden City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON DRUMMOND, LEE
WILLIAMS,and YESHONDA DRIGGINS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY AND PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
5:21-cv-04479-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Defendants submit Motion to seal
Portions of and Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

This Court entered the Confidentiality Order on March 8, 2022,
which recognizes the confidential nature of certain non-public
information at issue in this case.

The Defendants further request permission to redact testimony
regarding its employee training materials from the deposition of
John Retton. This testimony discusses confidential training
materials that Defendants produced subject to the Consent
Confidentiality Order, which are proprietary and competitively
sensitive.

Progressive Specialty Insurance Company operates as an insurance
firm.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UjLsKZat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
          Allison Hill White, Esq.
          Erin M. Munger, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com
                  zmcentyre@kslaw.com
                  mbrigman@kslaw.com
                  awhite@kslaw.com
                  emunger@kslaw.com

                - and -
          Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          500 W. 2nd Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 457-2000
          Facsimile: (512) 457-2100
          E-mail: jbarrett@kslaw.com

                - and -

          Robert E. Dapper, Jr, Esq.
          Lyle D. Washowich, Esq.
          Daniel Inadomi, Esq.
          BURNS WHITE LLC
          Burns White Center, 48 26th Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 995-3000
          Facsimile: (412) 995-3300
          E-mail: redapper@burnswhite.com
                  ldwashowich@burnswhite.com

PRYSMIAN CABLES: Montana Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prysmian Cables and
Systems USA, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Montana, Kenneth
Hendrix, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Prysmian Cables and Systems USA, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00143-DLB-EBA (E.D. Ky., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Prysmian Cables & Systems USA, LLC --
https://www.prysmiangroup.com/en -- manufactures telecommunication
equipment. The Company offers a wide range of optic fibers, optical
and copper cables, and connectivity systems.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Krista Sheets, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway
          Kirkpatrick Plaza, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com

               - and -

          Michele D. Henry, Esq.
          CRAIG HENRY PLC
          401 W. Main Street, Suite 1900
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: (502) 614-5962
          Fax: (502) 614-5968
          Email: mhenry@craighenrylaw.com


REALREAL INC: Settlement in Shareholder Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------
RealReal 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 Shareholder slass
suit settlement is approved and case is dismissed.

On September 10, 2019, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, its officers and directors
and the underwriters of its IPO in the Superior Court of the State
of California in the County of San Mateo.

Three additional purported class actions, also alleging claims
arising from the IPO were subsequently filed in Marin County and
San Francisco County Superior Courts.

The San Mateo case was voluntarily dismissed, refiled in Marin
County Superior Court and consolidated with the cases there.

On January 10, 2020, the Marin County plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

The plaintiffs in the San Francisco Superior Court case have filed
a request for dismissal. Separately an additional purported class
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on November 25, 2019.

On February 12, 2020, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the federal
action and an Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed on March 31,
2020. Defendants filed a demurrer and motion to strike in the state
court action on March 13, 2020 and filed a motion to stay the
proceedings in favor of the federal action on May 1, 2020.

On August 4, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motion to stay
the state court action and deferred ruling on the demurrer and
motion to strike pending the outcome of the federal court action.

A motion to dismiss the federal court action was filed on May 15,
2020.

On March 31, 2021, the court entered an order on the motion to
dismiss, dismissing the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") claims and some of the claims alleged under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). The court provided
plaintiffs with an opportunity to amend the complaint and, on April
30, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in federal
court.

The state court complaint, and the Second Amended Complaint in
federal court each allege claims under the Securities Act of 1933
on behalf of a purported class of shareholders who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant to or traceable to the registration
statement for the Company's IPO.

The federal complaint also alleges claims under the Exchange Act on
behalf of a purported class of shareholders who purchased the
Company's stock from June 27, 2019 through November 20, 2019.

The complaints seek, among other things, damages and interest,
rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 27, 2021, the
Company reached an agreement in principle to settle this
shareholder class action.

On November 5, 2021, plaintiff filed the executed stipulation of
settlement and motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
with the federal court.

On March 24, 2022, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.

On July 28, 2022, the court entered an order finally approving the
settlement and dismissing the case.

RealReal is an online and brick-and-mortar marketplace for
authenticated luxury consignment. Based on the circular economy,
The RealReal sells consigned clothing, fine jewelry, watches, fine
art and home decor.[BN]

REVANCE THERAPEUTICS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Revance Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Company will
continue to defend itself from a Securities Class Suit.

On December 10, 2021, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf
of a class of stockholders who acquired the Company's securities
from November 25, 2019 to October 11, 2021 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint
alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or
misleading statements regarding the manufacturing of DAXXIFY and
the timing and likelihood of regulatory approval and seeks
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an
award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees.


The Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on September
7, 2022.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2022.
The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.

These lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the
actual defense and disposition costs will depend upon many unknown
factors.

The outcome of the lawsuits is necessarily uncertain. The Company
could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of
either lawsuit, and it may not prevail. In addition, the Company
may incur substantial legal fees and costs in connection with each
lawsuit.

Nashville, Tennessee-based Revance is a commercial stage
biotechnology company focused on innovative aesthetic and
therapeutic offerings, including its next-generation, long-acting,
neuromodulator product, DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection. As of
December 31, 2021, the Company had $531 million in total assets
against $462 million in total liabilities.

ROCKET MORTGAGE: 4th Cir. Vacates, Remands Class Cert. Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
K. Issac deVyver, Esq. and Karla Johnson, Esq., of McGuireWoods
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on October 28, 2022,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Alig v. Rocket
Mortgage vacated and remanded for reconsideration a district court
order certifying a class of mortgage borrowers, highlighting an
important Article III standing issue in class action lawsuits. See
Alig v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, 52 F.4th 167 (4th Cir. 2022). The
Alig decision relies on the United States Supreme Court's decision
in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez and follows a grant of certiorari,
vacatur, and remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision
provides further ammunition for the argument that all putative
class members must have a demonstrable injury in order to recover
damages in a class action. Indeed, the grant of certiorari by the
Supreme Court in Alig is itself a signal that this defense is one
that should not be discounted by defendants finding themselves the
subject of class action litigation.

In Alig v. Quicken Loans, No. 5:12-CV-114, 2016 WL 10489897 (N.D.
W.Va. June 2, 2016), the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia certified a proposed class of West
Virginia residents who refinanced mortgages between 2004 and 2009
and for whom the defendant obtained appraisals using a form that
included an estimated value for the property. According to the
plaintiffs, they paid for independent appraisals, but received
appraisals that were tainted when the defendant exposed the
appraisers to a "target number" in the appraisal request. The
District Court agreed, granted class certification, and further
granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on claims of unconscionable
inducement under the West Virginia Code, breach of contract, and
conspiracy. The District Court awarded the plaintiffs nearly $10
million in statutory damages.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part,
rejecting the defendant's argument that the class included
uninjured class members without standing, but holding that the
District Court erred in its analysis of the breach of contract
claim. The Court of Appeals remanded for the District Court to
consider whether class members suffered any damages at all as to
the breach of contract claim. Alig v. Quicken Loans, Inc. 990 F.3d
782 (2021). Three months later, the United States Supreme Court
issued the opinion in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, holding that every
class member must have Article III standing for each claim that
they assert, requiring proof of concrete harm in order to recover
damages. 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). In Ramirez, the Supreme Court
determined that a large part of a certified class that had been
awarded statutory damages lacked standing where errors in their
credit reporting were never disseminated to third parties, and
reversed and remanded for consideration in the first instance
whether class certification was appropriate.

Quicken Loans then filed a petition for writ of certiorari, arguing
that members of the Alig class lacked standing under Ramirez. The
Supreme Court in January granted the petition, vacated the judgment
of the Fourth Circuit, and remanded the case "for further
consideration in light of [Ramirez.]" Rocket Mortgage, LLC v. Alig,
142 S.Ct. 748 (2022). The Fourth Circuit concluded on remand from
the Supreme Court that "the district court should apply TransUnion
to the facts of this case in the first instance" and vacated and
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. As the
defendant pointed out in the petition for certiorari, the Alig case
highlights the standing problem when one set of named plaintiffs --
or "perfect plaintiffs" -- establish standing with atypical
injuries, while a significant part of the class simultaneously has
no injury and lacks standing.

Although the District Court has not yet addressed these issues on
remand, Alig provides good reason for class action defendants to
meaningfully consider whether the plaintiff can establish injury
for each class member on a class-wide basis and to challenge
Article III standing when that burden is not met. That said,
defendants must remain mindful that Ramirez addressed the issue of
standing in federal court but says nothing about standing in state
court. Thus, a defendant challenging standing in federal court
based on Ramirez must be careful to not inadvertently find itself
defending a significant class action in state court where the
standing analysis may be different. [GN]

ROCKLER RETAIL: Paduano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rockler Retail Group,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Charles Paduano, on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Rockler Retail Group, Inc., Does
1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00330079-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Nov. 21, 2022).

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

Rockler Retail Group -- https://www.rockler.com/ -- provides retail
sale of hardwares. The Company offers tools, house wares and
household appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole Barvie, Esq.
          BARVIE LAW
          550 W B St., Fourth Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 858-255-0928


RYDER TRANSPORTATION: Johnson Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jose Johnson, Parks Ignacio, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ryder
Transportation Solutions, LLC, Case No. 22CV019819 was removed from
the Alameda County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on Nov. 23, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-07456-AGT to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Employment
Discrimination.

Ryder Transportation Solutions LLC --
https://ryder.com/transportation-logistics -- is a freight shipping
Trucking Company from Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mara D Curtis, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 457-8216
          Fax: (213) 457-8080
          Email: mcurtis@reedsmith.com


SAINT AGNES MEDICAL: Crouch Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kathryn Crouch, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Saint Agnes Medical Center, Case No.
22CECG03349 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Fresno, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Nov. 23, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-at-00931 to the
proceeding.

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

Saint Agnes Medical Center -- https://www.samc.com/ -- is a member
of Trinity Health, the fourth largest Catholic healthcare system in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mike Montalban Arias, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Phone: (310) 844-9696
          Fax: (310) 861-0168
          Email: mike@aswtlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Phone: (310) 820-8800
          Fax: (310) 820-8859
          Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com


SAM BANKMAN-FRIED: Kavuri Sues Over False Representations
---------------------------------------------------------
Sunil Kavuri, 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-23817-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 21, 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 billion of 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 United Kingdom.

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


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appointment of Milberg as Lead Counsel Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN DELAHOY, MARY
DUNAHOE, FRANK TASTINGER, TERRY TIGHE, JOANNE MICHANOWICZ, CORY
HIGHTOWER, and ERIC BOSCH, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, et al., Case
No. 2:22-cv-04132-CCC-CLW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs Robert A. Mason
and Kayce Kleehamer submit an application to have the Court appoint
Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC as interim lead
counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Court's November 14, 2022 Order.

As demonstrated in the lawsuit, Milberg is the right firm to guide
this litigation. Milberg has the requisite experience and resources
to vigorously represent the proposed classes.

Milberg has deep experience in successfully prosecuting consumer
class actions, before both trial and appellate courts, across the
country and has represented clients in lengthy and contentious
cases similar to the one at bar.

Indeed, Milberg's experience in prosecuting appliance and product
defect class actions just like this case is unmatched by any law
firm before this Court.

Samsung Electronics offers televisions, digital cameras, cell
phones, storage devices, home appliances, security systems,
smartwatches, and computer products.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EYD7aOat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com

                - and -

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

                - and -

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

SEAMLESS CONTACTS: Must Face Class Action Over Personal Info Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Seamless
Contacts Inc. must face a class action alleging it used peoples'
names and likenesses without their consent in violation of the
Illinois Right of Publicity Act.

Kate Hoffower alleged that Seamless created a profile of her that
included her name, contact information, and other personal
information without her consent, then used the profile to bring in
subscribers.

Her IRPA claim was analogous to the common law claim for violation
of the right of publicity, and was sufficient to establish standing
to sue, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the US District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois said on
Nov. 23. [GN]



SECOND ROUND: Gamble Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Second Round, LP. The
case is styled as Cassandra Gamble, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Second Round, LP, Case No.
2:22-cv-06732 (D.N.J., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Second Round, LP -- https://www.second-round.com/ -- is a
receivables management firm servicing businesses of all types.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SEPHORA USA: Products Contain Synthetic Ingredients, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell, writing for Global Cosmetic News, reports that a
disgruntled shopper has launched a class action lawsuit charging
Sephora with deceiving consumers by selling products containing
synthetic ingredients under its Clean at Sephora banner, according
to a report published by Top Class Actions.

THE DETAILS The suit was filed in a New York federal court and is
seeking damages, fees, costs and a jury trial for alleged
violations of state consumer fraud acts, breach of warranty, fraud
and unjust enrichment.

THE WHY? The complainant states that consumers understand 'clean'
in the context of cosmetics to be free from synthetic chemicals and
ingredients that could be harmful to the user or environment and a
'significant percentage of products' sold under the Clean at
Sephora program contain ingredients inconsistent with this
understanding. [GN]




SHI INTERNATIONAL: Mantagas Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Mantagas, Michael Robina, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. SHI International
Corp., Case No. SOM-L-000941-22 was removed from the Somerset
County Superior Court of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on Nov. 23, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-06739 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Employment
Discrimination.

SHI -- https://www.shi.com/ -- is a corporate reseller of software,
hardware, technology products and related services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sean Michael Topping, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULLBRIGHT US LLP
          1301 Avenue of The Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (941) 661-0225
          Email: sean.topping@nortonrosefulbright.com


SKYLER ZHANG: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fields Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE FIELDS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKYLER ZHANG, LLC; NORRISH ZHANG,
LLC; NEW ERA FOOD, INC.; and MICHAEL ZHANG, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-03002-PAB (D. Colo., Nov. 18, 2022) is an action against
the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum
wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

Plaintiff Fields was employed by the Defendants as server.

SKYLER ZHANG, LLC owns and operates restaurants in Glenwood Springs
and Carbondale, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Dec. 19 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT, DAVIDSON COUNTY, PART IV

IN RE: SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

ALL ACTIONS.

Lead Case No. 19-1169-IV

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

If you purchased or acquired SmileDirectClub, Inc. ("SmileDirect"
or the "Company") common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
SmileDirect’s September 12, 2019 initial public offering ("IPO"),
a class-action lawsuit may affect your rights.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Tennessee Rules
of Civil Procedure and the April 28, 2021 Order of the Chancery
Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, Twentieth Judicial District,
Part IV (the "Court"), that the above-captioned action (the
"Action") has been certified to proceed as a class action on behalf
of the Class, defined above, subject to certain exclusions. IF YOU
ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS
ACTION. At this time, there is no judgment, settlement, or monetary
recovery.

If you are a Class member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you choose to stay in the Class,
you do not need to do anything at this time other than retain your
documents relating to SmileDirect, including documents showing all
of your transactions (purchases, sales, and grants) in SmileDirect
common stock. You will automatically be included in the Class and
all orders or judgments in the Action, whether favorable or
unfavorable, will apply to you.

If you do not wish to remain a member of the Class, you must take
steps to exclude yourself from the Class. If you ask to be excluded
from the Class, you will not be bound by any order or judgment in
the Action, but you will not be eligible to receive a share of any
money which might be recovered for the benefit of the Class. To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request
for exclusion by mail or email postmarked no later than December
19, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the full
printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the "Notice").

This notice is only a summary. The full printed Notice is currently
being mailed to known potential Class members. If you have not
received a copy of the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice
by downloading it from www.SmileDirectClubSecuritiesLitigation.com
or by contacting the Notice Administrator at:

In re: SmileDirectClub, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No.
19-1169-IV
Notice c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173100, Milwaukee, WI 53217.

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

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

DEBORAH CLARK-WEINTRAUB
MAX R. SCHWARTZ
JEFFREY P. JACOBSON
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

JERRY E. MARTIN
SETH HYATT
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798

Please Do Not Call the Court with Questions.

Dated: October 20, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, Twentieth Judicial
District, Part IV


SOLSTICE MANAGEMENT: Gasaway Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bobbi Gasaway, and Dajah
Andrews, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Solstice Management Group, LLC d/b/a Monarch Theatre,
an Arizona company; Sean Badger, an Arizona resident; and Penelope
Badger, an Arizona resident; Case No. 2:22-cv-01520-DJH (D. Ariz.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") consisting of:

   "All servers, waitresses, bottle service workers, or
   similarly job titled workers; who work[ed] for Defendants
   Solstice Management Group, LLC d/b/a Monarch Theatre, Sean
   Badger, and/or Penelope Badger; who did not receive a
   separate payment from tips for their minimum wage for all
   hours worked and/or all of their earned tips are known as;"

Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid minimum
wage in violation of the FLSA; and/or for their unlawful
distribution of Plaintiffs' tips in violation of the FLSA.

Solstice Residential specializes in the management of cooperative,
condominium and luxury rental residences in the greater New York
City area.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3iaMiw7at
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Barrat, Esq.
          ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5050 N. 40 th St., Suite 260
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (480) 442-3410
          Facsimile: (480) 442-3410
          E-mail: jbarrat@zoldangroup.com

SOMNIA INC: Henderson Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Somnia, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Lavina Henderson, Jeremy Henderson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S.
VISION, INC., USV OPTICAL, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-06558 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Somnia Anesthesia Services -- https://somniaanesthesiaservices.com/
-- is an innovative anesthesia management company that offers
professional anesthesia services and expert anesthesia
consultants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Victoria Jennings Maniatis, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Fax: (212) 868-1229
          Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com


SONIA RYKIEL: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonia Rykiel, Inc.
The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Sonia Rykiel, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09905 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022).

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

Sonia Rykiel -- https://www.soniarykiel.com/eu/en/home -- has been
able to create clothes that match with a real lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


SOULFUL NUTRITION: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soulful Nutrition,
Inc. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Soulful
Nutrition, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09929 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Soulful Nutrition, Inc. -- https://soulfulnutrition.us/ --
specialize in creating a custom health strategy from one-on-one
consultations and pantry makeovers to healthy cooking classes.[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


STARKIST CO: Certioari Petition in Mislabeled Tuna Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
J. Warren Rissier, Esq., and Catherin North Hounfodji, Esq. of
Morgan Lewis, disclosed that the US Supreme Court denied a
certiorari petition seeking to resolve circuit court splits
relevant to the litigation of class action matters, including if
and when class certification is appropriate where a significant
portion of the class may be uninjured and on the use of
representative evidence in class actions.

Arising from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's en
banc decision in Olean v. StarKist, [1] the Supreme Court's
November 14, 2022, denial means that the Ninth Circuit decision
will stand, leaving in place splits between the Ninth Circuit and
other circuits regarding how and when to address the percentage of
uninjured class members in class actions and the use of averaging
assumptions as representative evidence of injury in class actions.

BACKGROUND OF OLEAN
On the heels of a criminal investigation into tuna producers'
pricing practices, several plaintiff buyers of tuna products
initiated putative class actions alleging that major tuna producers
had fixed prices. Plaintiffs sought certification of three separate
classes.

The parties submitted expert analyses regarding the scope of the
alleged classes. As to the direct purchaser class, the defendant
tuna producers argued that the large number of uninjured putative
class members -- up to 28% -- was not de minimis, or not
insignificant, and, therefore, the class could not be certified.
Defendants further argued that the averaging assumptions offered by
the plaintiff tuna buyers to show injury failed to provide
sufficient evidence to meet the Rule 23 requirements for
certification. Nevertheless, the district court certified the
direct purchaser class.

Defendants were permitted to appeal the class certification
decision to the Ninth Circuit. A three-judge panel agreed with
their arguments and concluded that the certification order could
not stand, based in part on what is known as the "de minimis rule"
-- the view that the number of potentially uninjured putative class
members defeated Rule 23 predominance and precluded certification.
The panel also held that averaging assumptions could only be used
to satisfy predominance when the assumptions have been sufficiently
analyzed to determine whether they mask relevant differences among
the individual class members.

The Ninth Circuit, of its own accord, granted an en banc rehearing
and affirmed the district court's class certification decision.
Rejecting the de minimis rule, the en banc majority held that
district courts cannot resolve an expert dispute on the number of
uninjured class members because it is necessarily a "merits"
question for a jury.

The en banc majority went on to hold that representative evidence
-- in this case, "averaging assumptions" on damages -- could
establish liability under Tyson Foods [2] as long as it is
"plausible" to a jury.

PETITION TO SUPREME COURT
Defendant StarKist asked the Supreme Court to resolve circuit
splits over two key issues that arise during the certification
phase of many class actions; specifically: (1) how many uninjured
members of the putative class is too many for a class to be
certified (and, relatedly, whether it is a merits question); and
(2) can representative evidence -- including averages -- be used to
support damages of the class?

Uninjured Parties, the De Minimis Rule, and the Merits

The US Courts of Appeals for the DC Circuit [3] and the First
Circuit [4] have both held that classes could not be certified
where the number of uninjured putative class members exceeded a de
minimis number. Because more than an insignificant number of
uninjured class members could involve individual determinations of
injury, these circuit courts have reasoned that the certification
analysis necessarily requires that individual issues predominate
over common ones, contrary to the requirement under Rule 23. Both
courts have applied the de minimis rule and held that specific
classes could not be certified where 10–12% of the putative
classes may have been uninjured.

The initial Ninth Circuit panel -- embracing and adopting the de
minimis standard used by the DC and First Circuits -- held that the
direct purchaser class in Olean could not be certified because
nearly one-third of the class (28%) may be uninjured and, thus,
there was no classwide evidence capable of proving their claims.
The en banc majority, however, subsequently rejected the de minimis
standard. StarKist asserted in its petition to the Supreme Court
that the en banc majority's rejection of the de minimis rule, and
approval of certification of a class with as many as 28% uninjured
class members, created a circuit split that warranted review.

The en banc majority further held that the consideration of
uninjured class members is ultimately a "merits" question for a
jury. In its petition to the Supreme Court, StarKist argued that
waiting to resolve the issue on the merits specifically contravenes
decisions of the DC, First, and Third Circuits, which have held
that the issue of classwide injury is part of the "hard look" and
rigorous Rule 23 analysis required by the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart
[5] and Comcast; [6] therefore, it must be resolved before
certification. StarKist argued that the Ninth Circuit's en banc
holding created an additional circuit split that warranted Supreme
Court review.

Representative Evidence and Averaging Assumptions

In seeking class certification, the plaintiff tuna buyers used
representative evidence and relied on Tyson Foods to do so. Under
the facts and law of that case, the Supreme Court held that
representative evidence of damages was admissible in a collective
action to establish classwide liability where it would be
"sufficient to sustain a jury finding . . . if it were introduced
in each [class member's] individual action," under the law
governing that claim. [7]

Noting that circuit courts have interpreted Tyson Foods
differently, Starkist further asserted in its petition that the
Ninth Circuit's holding allowing the averaging assumptions in that
case creates a conflict with the Third Circuit, which has rejected
this approach. [8]

IMPLICATIONS OF DENIAL
The Supreme Court's denial of Starkist's certiorari petition in
this matter carries important implications for class actions.

First, the Supreme Court appears to be content for the law to
further develop in the circuit courts regarding the evaluation of
uninjured class members at the class certification stage and the
use of representative evidence to meet the Rule 23 requirements.

Second, the Supreme Court's refusal to address these issues now
means that both litigants and courts will be left without important
Supreme Court guidance as to these critical issues. This, in turn,
creates further room for widely divergent trial court and appellate
court decisions.

Lastly, the en banc majority's holdings on these issues is now the
law in the Ninth Circuit, where plaintiffs may, in some cases, have
an easier path to class certification than in other circuits for
particular types of class actions. [GN]

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Can't Demand Arbitration in Privacy Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland at cookcountyrecord.com  reports that a federal judge
has ruled Subaru can't insist on arbitration for a class action
lawsuit from a woman who claims the company's DriverFocus system
violates a state biometrics privacy law in the way the system scans
the faces of drivers.

About a year ago, attorneys Daniel O. Herrera and Nickolas J.
Hagman, of the firm of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel, of
Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago against
Subaru on behalf of named plaintiff Renee Giron, identified as a
resident of Chicago. Subaru removed the complaint to federal
court.

The complaint focuses on the distracted driving crash prevention
system in certain Subaru vehicles -- the 2019-2022 Forester,
2020-2022 Outback and 2020-2022 Legacy -- which allegedly violates
the Illinois Biometric Privacy Information Act by scanning drivers'
faces and eyes, and collecting and transmitting that information
without first securing written permission from the drivers or
without supplying written notices concerning why the data is being
collected and how it will be used, stored, shared and ultimately
destroyed.

Daniel Herrera | Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel
According to the lawsuit, DriverFocus uses a near-infrared camera
to monitor the driver's face and eyes to ensure the driver is
paying attention to the road. The system will then "alert the
driver with either a visual warning on the vehicle's display system
or audible warnings, or both," should it determine the driver is
distracted or drowsy. The system can recognize the faces of up to
five registered drivers, according to the complaint, allowing it to
adjust various settings in the car to automatically suit the
driver's preset preferences.

In an order filed Nov. 21, U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso denied
Subaru's motion to effectively end Giron's class action by forcing
the case into arbitration.

Noting Giron took out a to purchase her 2020 Outback, Subaru argued
its financing agreement contains an arbitration provision giving
either party the right to choose that venue for a dispute --
including even the question of whether a dispute is ripe for
arbitration.

The company is trying to avoid a potentially hefty payout, likely
worth at least millions of dollars. Under the Illinois BIPA law,
plaintiffs can demand companies pay as much as $5,000 per
violation. While the question of how to define a "violation"
remains open, attorneys have said the law could be interpeted to
define an individual violation as each time a person's biometric
data is scanned. Multipled across potentially thousands of drivers
in Illinois, Subaru's potential risk could quickly mount.

For instance, other businesses targeted by class actions under the
BIPA law have routinely paid millions to settle the cases.

Facebook and Google each agreed to pay $650 million and $100
million, respectively, to settle claims against them. And a jury
recently ordered freight railroad operator BNSF to pay $228 million
in a class action over fingerprint scans the company required of
truck drivers entering its rail yards in Illinois. Plaintiffs'
attorneys in that case, however, say they believe damages should
have actually been far higher, as much as $800 million.

In the case against Subaru, Judge Alonso stopped Subaru's attempt
to sidestep the class action.

The judge noted Giron signed a financing agreement with Grand
Subaru, a dealership in suburban Bensenville, but sued Subaru of
America, the carmaker. And while he found clear evidence regarding
the question of arbitrability with the dealer, "there is no
evidence (let alone clear and unmistakable evidence) that plaintiff
has agreed to refer to an arbitrator the question of arbitrability
between plaintiff and Subaru of America."

The automaker, Alonso continued, is a third party to the contract
between Giron and the dealer, and thus the question of its ability
to enforce the arbitration clause in the finance agreement is
suitable for his court. Although that question had been open
earlier in proceedings, Alonso pointed to a U.S. Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals opinion from earlier this year, CCC Intelligent
Solutions v. Tractable, in which it held a third party couldn't
demand arbitration and that making such a decision was the purview
of a court, not an arbitrator.

"Subaru of America, Inc., has put forth no evidence, let alone
clear and convincing evidence, that plaintiff made any
representation to induce Subaru of America, Inc., to rely, to its
detriment, on the arbitration clause," Alonso wrote. "Nor has
Subaru of America, Inc., put forth any evidence of detrimental
reliance."

The automaker argued its choice to provide buyers like Giron an
added security maintenance plan, through a retail contract
worksheet, makes those buyers reliant on the company despite
executing the finance agreement with the dealer directly. But
Alonso said the document in question "says nothing about
arbitrating claims" and offers "no evidence that suggests the
document is a representation" on the part of buyers.

Alonso said the document specifically states "retailer use only,"
meaning it can't impose any legal duty on the buyer to accept an
agreement from the manufacturer. He set a status hearing for Dec.
8.

Subaru has been represented in the case by attorneys Livia M.
Kiser, Thomas E. Ahlering and Jennifer R. Virostko, of the firm of
King & Spalding, of Chicago.

Jonathan Bilyk contributed to this report. [GN]

SUTTER VALLEY: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER WARD, an
individual; and SACORA BESABE, an individual; on behalf of herself
and on behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly situated,
v. SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS, a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-00581-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff will move the Court on Jan. 27, 2023 to enter an
order:

   1. Conditionally certifying the case as collective action on
      behalf of:

      "All persons who are employed or have been employed by
      Sutter Valley in the State of California who, for the
      three years prior to the filing of this class action on
      Feb. 13, 2019, have worked as non-exempt Surgical
      Technicians, or in related positions, through the
      resolution of this case;"

   2. authorizing the parties to send notice;

   3. directing the Defendant to produce a putative collective
      action member list setting forth the last known addresses,
      telephone numbers, email address, dates of training, and
      partial social security numbers of all members; and

   4. extending tolling through the date the Defednant produces
      a putative collective action member list.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Vqa45oat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
          Jeffrey T. Green, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro, Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: REQ@QUINTLAW.COM
                  JTG@QUINTLAW.COM

                - and -

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          Lisa R. Brevard, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          888 Prospect Street, Suite 200
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (619) 399-3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
          E-mail: DMARKHAM@MARKHAM-LAW.COM
                  MREALIN@MARKHAM-LAW.COM
                  LBREVARD@MARKHAM-LAW.COM

SUTTER VALLEY: Ward, et al., Seek to Certify Classes, Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER WARD, an
individual; and SACORA BESABE, an individual; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. SUTTER VALLEY
HOSPITALS, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-00581-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask will the move the Court on January 27, 2023 for an
Order granting their motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes:

   "All non-exempt persons who are or have been employed be
   Defendant in the State of California, who for the four years
   prior to the filing of this Class Action [February 13, 2015]
   to the present, who used Kronos or other electronic
   timekeeping systems, had short meal periods edited or rounded
   to a net 30-minute meal period or more;" and

   "All persons who are employed or have been employed by
   Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years
   prior to the filing of this Class Action [February 13, 2015]
   to the present, have worked as non-exempt Surgical
   Technicians, or in related positions" and the following
   subclasses:

   -- Unpaid Overtime Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed
      by the Defendant in the State of California who, for the
      four years prior to the filing of this class action to the
      present, have worked as non-exempt employees and were not
      paid overtime for hours worked beyond eight hours in a
      single day or for hours worked beyond 40 in a single week
      pursuant to applicable the Labor Code and applicable IWC
      Wage Orders;"

   -- Unpaid Wages Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed
      by the Defendant in the State of California who, for the
      four years prior to the filing of this class action to the
      present, have worked as non-exempt employees and were not
      paid all hours worked pursuant to applicable Labor Code
      sections 510, 511, 1174, 1174.5, 1194 and 28 1198;"

   -- Meal Break Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed
      by the Defendant in the State of California who, for the
      four years prior to the 3 filing of this class action to
      the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and have
      not been provided a meal period for every five hours or
      major fraction thereof worked per day, and were not
      provided one (1) hour's pay for each day on which such
      meal period was not provided pursuant to Labor Code
      section 226.7 and section 512.

   -- Meal Break Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed
      by the Defendant in the State of California who, for the
      four years prior to the filing of this class action to the
      present, have worked as non-exempt employees and who
      worked over 10 hours in a shift and did not receive a
      second meal period;"

   -- Meal Break Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed
      by the Defendant in the State of California who, for the
      four years prior to the filing of this class action to the
      present, have worked as non-exempt employees and who were
      required to sign meal waivers as a condition of employment
      when hired by Defendant;"

   -- Meal Break Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed
      by the Defendant in the State of California who, for the
      four years prior to the filing of this class action to the
      present, have worked as non-exempt employees and, who
      signed meal waivers for the second meal and worked over 12
      hours in a shift;"

   -- Rest Period Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed
      by the Defendant in the State of California who, for the
      four years prior to the filing of this class action to
      the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and have
      not been provided a rest period for every three and a
      half (3.5) hours worked per day, and were not provided
      compensation of one hour's pay for each day on which such
      rest period was not provided pursuant to Labor Code
      section 226.7 and section 512;"

   -- Paystub Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed
      by the Defendant in the State of California who, for the
      four years prior to the filing of this class action to the
      present, have worked as non-exempt employees and were not
      provided an itemized statement accurately showing total
      hours worked, the applicable hourly rates in effect during
      each pay period whether a premium paid was a meal premium
      or rest premium, and the corresponding hours worked at
      each rate pursuant to Labor Code section 226 and 1174;"

   -- Wages Twice Monthly Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed
      by the Defendant in the State of California who, for the
      four years prior to the filing of this class action to the
      present, have worked as non-exempt employees and were not
      provided all wages twice monthly pursuant to Labor Code
      section 204;"

   -- Expense Reimbursement Subclass

      "All Class Members who were not reimbursed for expenses
      incurred in the discharge of their duties in connection
      with their employment with Defendant.

   -- Failure to Pay Termination Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed
      by the Defendant in the State of California who, for the
      four years prior to the filing of this class action to the
      present, have worked as non-exempt employees and were not
      provided all wages and applicable penalties due to them
      pursuant to the Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage
      Orders;" and

   -- B&P section 17200 Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed
      by the Defendant in the State of California who, have
      worked as non-exempt employees and who were subjected to
      Defendant's unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts
      or practices in the form of Labor Code violations
      regarding overtime, meal periods, rest periods, expense
      reimbursement or minimum wages and/or waiting time
      penalties."

This Motion is made on the grounds that Hill, Christian
Thornsberry, Christina Santiago, Christopher Cook, Daniel Tkach,
Danielle Davolt, Francisco Miranda; Gurjit Singh, Isaac Seckora,
Jon Gates, Kathrina DeGuzman, Marco Medel, Matthew Galli, Michelle
Crozier, Phillip Rodrigues, Raymond Tran, Stanislav Tatar,
Stephanie Hall, Taras Babchuk; Temesha Ivy, Tizette Ferman, Tyler
Wedmore, and Yvette Savalza, all filed and served herewith, all
documents in the Court's file, and upon such other oral and
documentary evidence as may be presented in responsive and reply
briefs, and at the hearing on this matter.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Nov. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3VnwZyjat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
          Jeffrey T. Green, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro, Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: REQ@QUINTLAW.COM
                  JTG@QUINTLAW.COM

                - and -

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          Lisa R. Brevard, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          888 Prospect Street, Suite 200
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (619) 399-3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
          E-mail: DMARKHAM@MARKHAM-LAW.COM
                  MREALIN@MARKHAM-LAW.COM
                  LBREVARD@MARKHAM-LAW.COM

SYNGENTA CROP: Day Farms Sues Over Crop Pesticides' Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY DAY FARMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG;
SYNGENTA CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.;
BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION; BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP;
NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA AGRI ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOE
CO-CONSPIRATOR DISTRIBUTORS AND RETAILERS 1-200, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02223-JMS-MG (S.D. Ind., Nov. 17, 2022) alleges
violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that farmers in the United
States have paid and continue to pay inflated prices for crop
protection products due to the unlawful conduct of the Defendants.
For many years, the Manufacturer Defendants unfairly impeded
competitors and artificially inflated the prices that United States
farmers pay for certain crop protection products. The Manufacturer
Defendants developed what they called "loyalty" or "rebate"
programs with cooperating Co-conspirator Distributors and
Retailers.

The Manufacturer Defendants' respective loyalty programs have
resulted in the stifling of generic competition and have preserved
their monopoly power in connection with certain crop protection
products, despite expired patent. Such unlawful conduct has
resulted in and continues to cause substantial monetary damages to
farmers across the country, says the suit.

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG was founded in 1758. The company's line
of business includes providing commercial physical and biological
research and development. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636 2593
          Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                 rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                 sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
          Dr. Kelly A. Rinehart, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM, PA
          1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (501) 952-8558
          Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
                 kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us

SYNGENTA CROP: HYS Farms Sues Over Crop Pesticides' Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
HYS FARMS, LLC, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA
CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; BASF SE;
BASF CORPORATION; BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP; NUTRIEN AG
SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOE
CO-CONSPIRATOR DISTRIBUTORS AND RETAILERS 1-200, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02229-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind., Nov. 17, 2022) alleges
violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that farmers in the United
States have paid and continue to pay inflated prices for crop
protection products due to the unlawful conduct of the Defendants.
For many years, the Manufacturer Defendants unfairly impeded
competitors and artificially inflated the prices that United States
farmers pay for certain crop protection products. The Manufacturer
Defendants developed what they called "loyalty" or "rebate"
programs with cooperating Co-conspirator Distributors and
Retailers.

The Manufacturer Defendants' respective loyalty programs have
resulted in the stifling of generic competition and have preserved
their monopoly power in connection with certain crop protection
products, despite expired patent. Such unlawful conduct has
resulted in and continues to cause substantial monetary damages to
farmers across the country. As a result of the Defendants'
anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and Members of the Classes
paid more for certain crop protection products than they otherwise
would have paid in the absence of Defendants' unlawful conduct,
says the suit.

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG was founded in 1758. The company's line
of business includes providing commercial physical and biological
research and development.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                 rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                 sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
          Dr. Kelly A. Rinehart, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM, PA
          1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (501) 952-8558
          Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
                 kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us

TALKSPACE INC: Continues to Defend Baron Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Talkspace 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 from the Baron Securities class suit.

In January 2022, the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors were named as defendants in securities class
action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Securities Actions") under the
case headings: (1) Baron v. Talkspace et al., No. 22-cv-00163
(S.D.N.Y.) and (2) Valdez v. Talkspace et al., No. 22-cv-00840
(S.D.N.Y.). The Securities Actions asserted violations of sections
10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Securities
Actions generally relate to public disclosures and statements by
the Company in connection with its merger with HEC. The core
allegations are that in connection with the merger, defendants made
material misstatements and omissions regarding Talkspace’s
business, financial condition, and growth prospects. The complaints
seek, among other things, damages on behalf of all members of the
proposed class. In June 2022, the Securities Actions were
consolidated under the caption In re Talkspace, Inc. Securities
Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Action"). On August 1,
2022, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed a
consolidated class action complaint, which asserted the same
violations of sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 as described
above. Defendants have moved to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint.

In June and July 2022, individuals filed stockholder derivative
lawsuits purportedly on behalf of Talkspace, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under the case
captions: (1) Odsvall v. Oren Frank et al., No. 22-cv-05016
(S.D.N.Y.) and (2) Nayman v. Berg, et al., No. 22-cv-06258
(S.D.N.Y.) (the "Derivative Actions"). The Derivative Actions name
certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors
as defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. The
Derivative Actions assert claims for violations of federal
securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty relating to the merger with HEC, among
other things, based on many of the same facts at issue in the
Consolidated Securities Action. The complaint in Odsvall v. Oren
Frank et al. additionally alleges that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary obligations to Talkspace by permitting
misleading statements to be published in a proxy statement, press
releases, and other public filings and announced on a quarterly
earnings call. The complaints seek, among other things, damages on
behalf of the Company, restitution and injunctive relief. In
September 2022, the Derivative Actions were consolidated under the
caption In re Talkspace Stockholder Derivative Litigation (the
"Consolidated Derivative Action"). All proceedings and deadlines in
the Consolidated Derivative Action have stayed pending a final
decision on the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
class action complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action.

The Company is not able to predict the outcome of these lawsuits,
nor can it predict the amount of time and expense that will be
required to resolve the lawsuits.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them. The Company incurred an
increase in legal fees associated with these lawsuits in the third
quarter of 2022.

Talkspace is a behavioral healthcare company that markets itself as
being enabled by a "purpose-built technology platform." Talkspace
began as HEIC, a blank check company. A blank check company is
sometimes referred to as a special purpose acquisition company --
or "SPAC" -- and does not initially have any operations or business
of its own.[BN]

TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS: Buncombe County Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Team Health Holdings,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Buncombe County, North Carolina,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Team
Health Holdings, Inc., AmeriTeam Services, LLC, HCFS Health Care
Financial Services, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00420-KAC-JEM (E.D.
Tenn., Nov. 22, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

TeamHealth -- https://www.teamhealth.com/ -- offers careers for
physicians plus hospital management and staffing services for
facilities across the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet R Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL AND WARWICK, P.A.
          1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, #105
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (352) 753-8600
          Fax: (352) 504-3301
          Email: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com

               - and -

          John S Hughes, Esq.
          Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
          WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A.
          525 North Main Street
          Salisbury, NC 28144
          Phone: (704) 633-5244
          Fax: (704) 633-9434
          Email: jhughes@wallacegraham.com
                 mwallace@wallacegraham.com

               - and -

          Mary A Parker, Esq.
          PARKER & CROFFORD
          5115 Maryland Way
          Brentwood, TN 37027
          Phone: (615) 244-2445
          Fax: (615) 255-6037
          Email: mparker@parker-crofford.com


TEMPEST THERAPEUTICS: Chiu Suit Final Settlement for Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tempest Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the final
settlement in the Chiu Shareholder Derivative Suit is subject for
Court approval.

On July 27, 2017, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was
filed in Massachusetts Federal court (Chiu v. Dipp) against
OvaScience and certain former officers and directors of OvaScience
alleging breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment and
violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. related to
OvaScience's January 2015 follow-on public offering and other
public statements concerning OvaScience's AUGMENT treatment.

Following the Court's dismissal of an amended complaint, the
parties agreed that plaintiffs could file a second amended
complaint and that the case would be stayed pending the resolution
of the Dahhan Action.

In May 2018, the court entered an order staying this case pending
the resolution of the Dahhan Action.

As of September 12, 2022, the parties have reached an agreement in
principle and have executed a term sheet in connection with the
settlement.

The parties are in discussions regarding a potential attorney fee
award. If the parties cannot reach a resolution regarding a fee
award, any potential award will be determined by the Court. Any
final settlement is subject to Court approval.

Tempest Therapeutics, Inc. a clinical-stage oncology company
focused on leveraging a deep scientific understanding of cancer
biology and medicinal chemistry to develop and advance novel,
orally available therapies for the treatment of solid tumors. The
company is based in South San Francisco, California.


TEMPEST THERAPEUTICS: Dahhan Action Settlement for Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tempest Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the Dahhan Action
settlement is subject for final approval.

On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in Massachusetts Federal court (Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc.)
against OvaScience and certain former officers of OvaScience
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
(the "Dahhan Action").

On March 4, 2022, the parties filed a motion to preliminarily
approve a settlement of the action. The settlement amount of $15
million will be funded entirely by insurance. All defendants
expressly deny liability.

On April 1, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement.
The settlement remains subject to final approval.

Tempest Therapeutics, Inc. a clinical-stage oncology company
focused on leveraging a deep scientific understanding of cancer
biology and medicinal chemistry to develop and advance novel,
orally available therapies for the treatment of solid tumors. The
company is based in South San Francisco, California.


TEMPEST THERAPEUTICS: OvaScience Final Settlement for Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tempest Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that the final
settlement in the OvaScience Shareholder Derivative Suit is subject
for court approval.

On November 9, 2016, a purported shareholder derivative action was
filed in Massachusetts State court (Cima v. Dipp) against
OvaScience and certain former officers and directors of OvaScience
and OvaScience alleging breach of fiduciary duties, unjust
enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of
corporate assets for purported actions related to OvaScience's
January 2015 follow-on public offering.

As of September 12, 2022, the parties have reached an agreement in
principle and have executed a term sheet in connection with a
settlement.

On September 13, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the
case pending settlement.

On September 15, 2022, the court issued a 90 day nisi order. The
parties are in discussions regarding a potential attorney fee
award.

If the parties cannot reach a resolution regarding a fee award, any
potential award will be determined by the Court.

Any final settlement is subject to Court approval.

Tempest Therapeutics, Inc. a clinical-stage oncology company
focused on leveraging a deep scientific understanding of cancer
biology and medicinal chemistry to develop and advance novel,
orally available therapies for the treatment of solid tumors. The
company is based in South San Francisco, California.


TESLA INC: Faces Suit Over Vehicles' Defective Suspension Parts
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Hanson, Esq., writing for Legal Scoops, reports that consumers
filed a class action lawsuit against Tesla for alleged defects in
Model S and Model X suspension components, including control arm
assembly components. Consumers who purchased or leased certain
Tesla Model S and Model X vehicles with a production date between
September 17, 2013 and October 15, 2018 may have important legal
rights for compensation.

For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (1-855-678-6881).

Current or former owners or lessees of Tesla Model S and Model X
vehicles manufactured between September 17, 2013 and October 15,
2018 should be aware that California lemon law and other state and
federal laws may force Tesla to either "buy the vehicle back" or
provide further significant compensation for those experiencing
this suspension defect.

Under California's lemon law, qualifying "lemons" must be bought
back, and that can mean a large cash refund and payoff of your loan
or lease. The refund could be as much as everything you paid for
the vehicle and everything you owe: monthly payments, down
payments, tax, finance charges, license, and registration.

You could even qualify for 2x your money back depending on the
circumstances. What Tesla would have to buy it for has nothing to
do with how much the vehicle is currently worth.

The law has a formula that starts with you getting all your money
back and then taking certain deductions and exclusions away from
your payment. Those refunds and exclusions are challenging to
understand and can be fought against by knowledgeable lemon law
attorneys.

Tesla Class Action Suspension Defect Claims
tesla suspensionConsumers filed a class action lawsuit over claimed
defects in Tesla Model S and Model X suspension components. The
Tesla class action lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of
California on November 20, 2020, and is captioned Williams v.
Tesla, Inc., 4:20-cv-08208.

The Tesla class action lawsuit alleges that certain Tesla vehicles
(Tesla Model S and Model X with a production date between September
17, 2013 and October 15, 2018) purchased or leased in California
and Oregon suffer from one or more latent defects in their
suspension system. The class action alleges the suspension defect
may cause the front and rear suspension control arm assembly
components to prematurely loosen, wear, crack, and/or break.

The Tesla class action lawsuit claims the suspension defect can
manifest without warning and cause the sudden and unexpected loss
of steering control.

For free information on your legal right to seek compensation, fill
out the form below or call us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (1-855-678-6881).

Tesla Model S and X class action status
On April 18, 2022, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class Action
Complaint against Tesla asserting claims under the consumer
protection laws of California and Oregon, as well as fraud by
concealment and unjust enrichment.

Tesla has denied the claims and filed a motion to dismiss some
allegations by one of the plaintiffs in the class action on May 2,
2022, which motion has been fully briefed and is now awaiting
decision by the judge.

The Tesla class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all current
or former owners or lessees of certain Model S and X vehicles who
reside in California and Oregon. This class action lawsuit is not
brought on behalf of residents of any other state.

Tesla has moved to dismiss the claims of one of the class action
plaintiffs under California law.

No motion for class certification has been filed or other pre-trial
dates set, and the class action is not set for trial.

Tesla class action options
In a class action lawsuit, if the class is certified by the court
the lawyers who bring the class action will represent you. You will
receive notice if the case is certified by the court to proceed as
a class action and of your right to opt out of the class by a
certain deadline.

If the class action lawyers prevail at trial, you may receive
whatever relief that is awarded by the judge or jury. But if they
lose, you may not be able to litigate individual claims over the
issues raised in the class action.

As with most litigation, the vast majority of class action cases
settle. If the Tesla class action settles, and the court
preliminarily approves the settlement, you will receive a class
notice describing your options. Those options will be: (a) do
nothing, in which case you may get nothing but be bound by the
settlement, (b) submit a claim form if requested and get whatever
relief is made available and you are also bound by the settlement,
or (c) opt out and pursue your own claims, in which case you are
not bound by the settlement but cannot participate in any of the
relief that is being offered to class members.

For most consumers, a class action settlement may provide
significant benefits and does not require much effort to
participate. It also comes with little to no risk, as the claims
have been resolved.

But for others, particularly where they may have had significant
damages, opting out and pursuing individual lemon law claims may
provide them an opportunity to receive a better recovery, in a
shorter period of time, but with no guarantee they will get
anything in settlement.

When it comes to vehicle class actions what to do can be a
complicated decision, as it can depend on many factors. These
factors include:

How old is your car?
Has the defect occurred in your car?
Have you taken it in for repairs on more than one occasion?
Do you still own the car?
Is the car still under warranty?

Where do you live?
If you willing to consider the opportunity of getting a greater
recovery in a lemon law lawsuit, we are available to help you sort
through these questions and make an informed decision.

For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (1-855-678-6881).

Tesla suspension defect class action - FAQ
What is the Tesla class action lawsuit name and case number?
Williams v. Tesla, Inc., 4:20-cv-08208

When and where was the Tesla class action lawsuit filed?
The Tesla class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on November
20, 2020.

What is alleged in the Tesla class action lawsuit?
tesla model xThe Tesla class action lawsuit seeks damages against
Tesla for breach of warranty and for unfair and deceptive acts and
practices pertaining to the design and manufacture of all Tesla
Model S and Model X with a production date between September 17,
2013, and October 15, 2018 sold in California and Oregon.

The Third Amended Class Action Complaint alleges the Tesla vehicles
at issue suffer from one or more latent defects in their suspension
system that cause the front and rear suspension control arm
assembly components to prematurely loosen, wear, crack, and/or
break.

The class action alleges this suspension defect can manifest
without warning and cause the sudden and unexpected loss of
steering control.

The class action complaint further alleges that Tesla has not only
known about and failed to disclose the existence of the suspension
defect to plaintiffs and the class, but it has taken active
measures to conceal its knowledge by misrepresenting the cause of
the suspension components' failure.

The class action claims when consumers present their vehicles to
Tesla's service centers to repair failed suspension components,
Tesla routinely blames the failed parts on "driver abuse" or
"normal wear and tear."

Plaintiffs also allege that Tesla has acknowledged this defect
through its recent safety recall of Model S and Model X vehicles in
China, which were produced at same manufacturing facility in the
United States as are the Model S and Model X vehicles sold in the
United States, before being exported for sale in China.

Plaintiffs assert class action claims under both California and
Oregon law on behalf of residents in California and Oregon only.

For free information on your legal right to seek compensation, fill
out the form below or call us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (1-855-678-6881).

What Tesla vehicle models are identified in the class action
lawsuit?
The class action claims the suspension defect affects all Tesla
Model S and Model X vehicles with a production date between
September 17, 2013, and October 15, 2018.

How many Tesla vehicles are impacted by the suspension defect?
According to publicly available data, the total number of Tesla
vehicles sold nationwide is approximately 151,067. However, most
Tesla vehicles are sold in California.

What does the Tesla class action claim is the cause of the
suspension defect?
The Tesla class action complaint alleges the Tesla vehicles suffer
from one or more latent defects in their suspension system that
cause the front and rear suspension control arm assembly components
to prematurely loosen, wear, crack, and/or break.

Does the alleged suspension defect violate Tesla's warranty?
The class action complaint alleges that the Tesla vehicles are
covered either by Tesla's 4-year/80,000-mile New Vehicle Limited
Warranty or its 2-year/100,000 mile Used Vehicle Limited Warranty.

While many, if not all the 2013 and 2014 Model S vehicles have aged
out of the stated new vehicle limited warranty period, many later
model years are still within their warranty periods. The class
action also claims Tesla concealed information about the suspension
defect from Tesla owners and lessees.

Are Tesla cars with the suspension defect unsafe?
According to the class action complaint, any defect in a suspension
system that can cause the front and rear suspension control arm
assembly components to prematurely loosen, wear, crack, and/or
break is unsafe. According to the class action Tesla has issued at
least three Technical Service Bulletins addressing this issue, but
Tesla has not issued a recall to fix the suspension defect.

Have Tesla owners been offered anything to resolve this issue?
No.

What is the status of the Tesla class action lawsuit?
On April 18, 2022, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class Action
Complaint. Tesla filed a motion to dismiss some allegations in the
class action complaint on May 2, 2022, which motion is now awaiting
decision.

The Tesla class action is pending in Oakland, California before
Judge Haywood S Gilliam Jr.

Discovery has not been completed and no trial date has been set in
this case.

Has the Tesla class action lawsuit been settled?
No.

Is there anything I need to do at this time?
At this time the Tesla class action lawsuit has not been settled or
certified by the court to proceed as a class action. If you decide
you want to bring your own individual claim, you can do so now and
opt out when you receive notice. Or the class will be defined as
those people who have not filed lawsuits or settled their claims
and you will be automatically opted out of the settlement.

As no settlement has been reached nor a class certified, there is
nothing you need to do at this time.

However, if you would like to discuss your options with us, fill
out the form below or call us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (1-855-678-6881).

What happens if I don't opt out of the class action lawsuit or
settlement?
It depends on how any class action settlement is structured, but in
general if you do not opt out of the class or settlement you will
be bound by its terms. You will receive any benefits offered in the
settlement, either automatically or by submitting a claim form.
However, you will not be able to bring any individual claim for
damages caused by the defect, except possibly for personal injury
claims.

Why would I opt out of the Tesla class action lawsuit or
settlement?
tesla model sFor many people a class action lawsuit provides them
significant benefits without the need to spend any money or do much
other than complete a claim form.  And because the matter is
settled, as long as the court approves the settlement you will get
the relief that is described in the class notice.

However, other people may decide that the relief offered as part of
the class action settlement is not adequate, that they do not want
to wait to get relief or that they think they will get more if they
do not participate in the class action settlement.

This depends on a variety of factors, such as how old is your car,
can you document the defect occurred in your car, have you taken it
in for repairs on more than one occasion, do you still own the car,
is it still under warranty and where do you live. Depending on the
answers to those questions, while there is no guarantee you will
receive any recovery if you opt out you may have the opportunity to
receive significant relief, including a vehicle repurchase and
penalties.

For free information on your legal right to seek compensation, fill
out the form below.

What is the Song Beverly Warranty Act?
The Song-Beverly Warranty Act, California Civil Code Section
1793.2(d)(1), is a California state law that requires manufacturers
to repair defects after a reasonable number of repair attempts.
What is "reasonable" is not part of hard and fast rules -- safety
defects should be fixed immediately, for example.

The defects have to be important, and must "substantially impair
the vehicle's use, value, or safety." Civil Code Section
1793.22(e)(2). Under Civil Code Section 1793.2(d)(1), manufacturers
must promptly offer repurchase or replacement of the vehicle they
cannot fix in a reasonable time frame.

In addition, Civil Code Section 1794(c) and Section 1793.2(d)
provides that customers are entitled to a civil penalty in an
amount up to two times actual damages if manufacturers acted
"willfully" (meaning knowingly, but not necessarily with wrongful
or malicious intent) in ignoring or failing its obligation under
Song-Beverly.

Finally, under Civil Code Section 1794(d), manufacturers such as
Tesla must pay plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs as part of the
settlement, as the Song-Beverly Act is a pro-consumer fee-shifting
statute.

What compensation could I get if I bring an individual lemon law
lawsuit?
Current or former owners should be aware that the California lemon
law and other state and federal laws may force Tesla to either "buy
the vehicle back," or provide other important compensation.

Under California's lemon law, qualifying "lemons" must be bought
back, and that can mean a large cash refund and payoff of your loan
or lease. The refund could be as much as everything you paid for
the vehicle and everything you owe: monthly payments, down
payments, tax, finance charges, license, and registration. In fact,
you could even qualify for 2x your money back, depending on the
circumstances.

What Tesla would have to buy it for has nothing to do with how much
the vehicle is currently worth. There is a formula in the law, that
starts with you getting all your money back, and then taking
certain deductions and exclusions away from your payment.

Those refunds and exclusions are difficult to understand and can be
fought against by knowledgeable consumer attorneys. Don't settle
for small dollar payments or more possible fixes without speaking
to qualified lemon law attorney with your individual best interest
in mind.

There are a lot of factors to consider in deciding whether to
pursue individual lemon law claims.[GN]

TJX COMPANIES: Barrett Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Troy Barrett, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 221001405
was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on Nov. 23, 2022, and assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-04708.

The Plaintiff's Complaint, on behalf of himself and a putative
class of employees, alleges violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act for failure to pay overtime wages associated with certain
preliminary and postliminary activities at Philadelphia and
Pittston, Pennsylvania distribution centers.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          William J. Simmons, Esq.
          Hannah M. Franke, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Three Parkway
          1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102.1321
          Phone: (267) 402-3047
          Fax: (267) 430-7908
          Email: wsimmons@littler.com
                 hfranke@littler.com

TOMMY HILFIGER: Licea Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jose Licea, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TOMMY HILFIGER U.S.A., INC., a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
37-2022-00042365-CU-MT-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on Nov. 23, 2022, and
assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01851-DMS-MDD.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a California class, consisting of:
"All persons within California who within the statute of
limitations period: communicated with Defendant via the chat
feature on Defendant's Website using a cellular telephone, and
whose communications were recorded and/or eavesdropped upon without
prior consent." The Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of
California's Invasion of Privacy Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert A. Naeve, Esq.
          Edward S. Chang, Esq.
          Ryan D. Ball, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612.4408
          Phone: (949)851-3939
          Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
          Email: rnaeve@jonesday.com
                 echang@jonesday.com
                 rball@jonesday.com


TORRID HOLDINGS: Faces Waswick Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA WASWICK, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TORRID HOLDINGS INC., ELIZABETH MUNOZ, GEORGE WEHLITZ, STEFAN L.
KALUZNY, DARY KOPELIOFF, LISA HARPER, THEO KILLION, MORGAN STANLEY
& CO. LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC,
JEFFERIES LLC, ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, COWEN AND
COMPANY, LLC, WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., TELSEY ADVISORY
GROUP LLC, SYCAMORE PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, L.P., SYCAMORE PARTNERS
TORRID, L.L.C., SYCAMORE PARTNERS, L.P., SYCAMORE PARTNERS
ASSOCIATES-C, L.P., SYCAMORE PARTNERS ASSOCIATES, L.P., SYCAMORE
PARTNERS ASSOCIATES INVESTMENTS, L.P., SYCAMORE PARTNERS
(CO-INVEST), L.L.C., and SYCAMORE PARTNERS ASSOCIATES CO-INVEST,
L.P., Case No. 2:22-cv-08375 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 16, 2022) is a
securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased
Torrid common stock in or traceable to the Company's July 2021
initial public offering seeking to pursue remedies under the 1933
Act.

On June 7, 2021, Torrid filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) a registration statement on Form S-1 for the IPO,
which, after several amendments, was declared effective on June 30,
2021 (the "Registration Statement").

The Defendants allegedly used the Registration Statement to sell
12.65 million shares (including the full exercise of the
Underwriter Defendants' overallotment option) of Torrid at $21 per
share, generating over $265 million in gross offering proceeds.

Moreover, in June 2020, prior to the IPO, these same insiders
caused Torrid to pay out tens of millions of dollars to themselves,
including $285.6 million paid to funds managed by defendant
Sycamore, $1.3 million to defendant Muñoz, $1.1 million to
defendant Wehlitz, and $7.9 million to defendant Harper, which
further drained the Company of cash.

On March 17, 2022, Torrid issued a release announcing the Company's
financial results for its fourth fiscal quarter and year ended
January 29, 2022. The release stated that Torrid's sales growth
continued to decelerate to just 4.5% growth during the quarter.

On June 7, 2022, Torrid issued a release announcing the Company's
financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended April 30,
2022. The release stated that Torrid's comparable store sales
actually declined 2% during the quarter.

By the end of September 2022, the price of Torrid stock fell to a
low of just $4.06 per share, over 80% below the IPO price, the suit
alleges.

Torrid is a fashion retailer specializing in plus-size apparel and
intimates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett M. Middleton, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
          E-mail: BrettM@johnsonfistel.com

TOWER HEALTH: Tracks Patients' Health Care Info, Santoro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK SANTORO and JESSICA LANDIS, v. TOWER HEALTH and META
PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-04580 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 16, 2022)
alleges that the Defendants violated Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (ECPA) and Stored Communications Act by accessing and
sharing Tower patients' health care information, medical records,
and related information without their knowledge or consent.

According to the complaint, Tower encourages patients to use its
MyTowerHealth online portal to manage their healthcare services by,
among other things, scheduling appointments, viewing test results,
requesting prescriptions, and making payments, the lawsuit claims.


The Defendants allegedly worked together to design and place
computer code on the MyTowerHealth site that secretly tracks
patients' protected healthcare information (i.e., appointments,
procedures, medicines) and metadata generated from their
interaction with the site (i.e., IP address, searches, location
information) and automatically sends all of this information to
Meta where it is used both to build-out Meta's user profiles and
generate targeted advertising on its social media platforms, all to
Defendants' financial benefit.

Meta's agreement with Tower concerning the use of Meta Pixels does
not comply with the requirements of e Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) or Pennsylvania law because
it does not contain the required level of protection for consumers'
personally-identifiable patient information and patient health
information and allows this data to be shared without notice to, or
consent from, Tower's patients, the suit says.

Tower is a regional, integrated healthcare provider/payer system
based in West Reading, Pennsylvania that consists of Reading
Hospital, Chestnut Hill Hospital, Phoenixville Hospital, Pottstown
Hospital, St. Christopher's Hospital for Children, Reading Hospital
Rehabilitation at Wyomissing, Reading Hospital School of Health
Sciences, home healthcare services provided by Tower Health at Home
and a network of 27 urgent care facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836
          E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com

                - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Dismissed Class Action Suit Over Frame Rust
---------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood at CarComplaints.com reports that a Toyota FJ Cruiser
frame rust lawsuit alleges the frames prematurely corrode and rust
to the point the FJ Cruisers are allegedly dangerous to drive.

The class action lawsuit alleges frame rust destroys 2007-2014
Toyota FJ Cruisers and causes owners to pay to repair Toyota's
mistakes.

According to the lawsuit, testing of the FJ Cruiser frames reveal
corrosion occurs due to a lack of zinc phosphate coating used to
protect the frames.

According to the FJ Cruiser rust class action:

"Indeed, analysis documented the discontinuous nature of the zinc
phosphorus layer (pretreatment) in all of the frames analyzed. A
discontinuous coating allows sections of the frame to be
unprotected and, therefore, more likely to suffer rust damage."

The plaintiffs allege Toyota didn't warn FJ Cruiser owners about
rusted frames even though other Toyota models had suffered from the
same rust problems and Toyota had allegedly done something about
it.

Those plaintiffs also reference complaints about Toyota FJ Cruiser
frame rust and how the automaker touted the frames as having an
"Electrocoat Deposition (ED) protective coating" that "seals every
nook and cranny and helps the frame live long and strong."

Toyota FJ Cruiser Frame Rust Lawsuit Dismissed
In a motion to dismiss the frame rust lawsuit, Toyota alleges all
the claims should be dismissed for a variety of reasons.

The automaker began by concluding the FJ Cruiser frame rust lawsuit
does not adequately differentiate between what Toyota USA allegedly
did and what Toyota Japan did.

According to the judge, "neither defendant has sufficient notice of
its alleged role in the fraudulent scheme Plaintiffs attempt to
allege."

Toyota told Judge Percy Anderson the class action lawsuit makes
allegations concerning how Toyota allegedly knew about FJ Cruiser
frame rust and corrosion problems because the same problems
occurred in "similar" 2005-2010 Toyota trucks.

But the judge found the class action doesn't "allege sufficient
facts to explain how the Toyota trucks are similar to the FJ
Cruiser."

The judge also found many of the reported problems with the
allegedly "similar" trucks and the various announced service
campaigns for those trucks didn't begin until 2014 or later.

According to the judge, this means actions taken by Toyota
regarding vehicles other than 2007-2014 FJ Cruisers, "do not
logically or plausibly support an inference that Toyota knew about,
misrepresented, or concealed a defect in the 2007-2014 FJ Cruisers
when Defendants marketed and sold those vehicles."

The judge also ruled about allegations concerning a small number of
excessive rust reports beginning in 2012 that do not plausibly
suggest Toyota knew about and concealed alleged frame defects.

In its motion, Toyota also argues the plaintiffs cannot assert
claims under California law on behalf of a nationwide class of FJ
Cruiser customers. The judge agreed and dismissed the nationwide
class claims based on California's consumer protection laws, and
without leave to amend the lawsuit.

The judge then moved on to arguments regarding statutes of
limitations. Toyota argues several plaintiffs who filed the FJ
Cruiser frame rust lawsuit first discovered the problems as early
as 2012. Therefore, Toyota contends those claims are barred by the
applicable statutes of limitations.

And regarding alleged violations of implied warranties, the
automaker asserts those claims are untimely because they are barred
by the four-year statutes of limitations.

The plaintiffs, on the other hand, claim the limitations should be
ignored because Toyota allegedly concealed the rust problems and
said the rusted frames were normal.

The judge responded by saying, "issues related to the statutes of
limitations are not amenable to resolution at this stage of the
proceedings." The judge also ruled the class action lawsuit, "does
not adequately allege Defendants' knowledge of the alleged defect
to support a fraudulent concealment theory."

By the end, the judge dismissed claims for unjust enrichment and
declaratory relief without leave to amend. Judge Anderson also
dismissed nationwide class claims based on California law, and
without leave to amend.

However, the remaining dismissed claims were dismissed with leave
to amend, leaving the plaintiffs the right to refile certain claims
over alleged Toyota FJ Cruiser frame rust problems.

The Toyota class action lawsuit was filed by these FJ Cruiser
customers.

Elliot Nazos / Florida / 2010 Toyota FJ Cruiser
Christine Blight / Pennsylvania / 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser
Jack Perry / Ohio / 2010 Toyota FJ Cruiser
Patricia Loughney / Colorado / 2010 Toyota FJ Cruiser
Emily Barbour / New Jersey / 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser
Thomas Pastore / New York / 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser
Brian Hale / Virginia / 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser
Timothy Dotson / Maryland / 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser
Jill Silvernale / Michigan / 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser
Kyle Blumin / Utah / 2013 Toyota FJ Cruiser

The Toyota FJ Cruiser frame rust class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California:
Elliot Nazos, et al., v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Edelsberg Law, P.A., Kopelowitz
Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP,
Gordon & Partners, P.A., and the Law Office of Dennis O. Cohen,
PLLC. [GN]
       

TWITTER INC: Fails to Give 60 Days Written Notice, Rodriguez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TWITTER, INC. and PRO UNLIMITED, INC, Case No.
3:22-cv-07222 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 16, 2022) alleges that the Defendant
violates the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act, and the California WARN Act, and fails to provide the
employees' final pay and benefits on the same day that they were
terminated, in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff, along with thousands of other similarly situated
employees, were employed by Twitter through Magnit, a payroll
administration company.

Mr. Rodriquez, like potentially thousands of other Twitter
employees who were paid through Magnit, received an email on
November 12, 2022, stating that he was being laid off, effective
November 14, 2022.

Accordingly, Twitter did not give 60 days advance written notice to
the employees paid through Magnit who Twitter laid off, and were
not given pay in substitution for federal or California WARN Act
notice. The employees also did not receive their full final pay,
benefits, and expense reimbursement the same day that they were
terminated, as required by California law, says the suit.

Twitter, Inc. is an American social media company based in San
Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Thomas Fowler, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  tfowler@llrlaw.com

UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Murphy Sues Over Deceptive Conduct
----------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Murphy, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-07468
(N.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2022), is brought against Defendant for the
manufacture, distribution, marketing, and sale of THE LAUNDRESS
brand products (the "Product" or "Products"), that based on
Defendant's own admission suffer from identical deceptive conduct
concerning the inclusion of deadly bacteria.

Despite Defendant's widespread marketing campaign that the Products
are non-toxic and present better-for-you alternatives to other
cleaners, the Products contain highly toxic, undisclosed
ingredients. Specifically, the Products contain undisclosed
bacteria that have fatal consequences. Household cleaning products
that pose such a hazard are unreasonably dangerous compared to the
utility of the Products. This deception rendered the Products
unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose. Further, had
Plaintiff and Class Members been aware of the presence of fatal
bacteria, they would not have purchased the Products.

On November 17, 2022, Defendant first revealed that THE LAUNDRESS
brand's entire product line contains harmful, toxic bacteria. In
fact, the toxin has been present in all of the Products for years.
Unfortunately, the toxin permeated--unknowingly to
consumers--throughout all of the Products which led (and currently
leads) to unneeded physical injury and economic harm.

Plaintiff and Class Members are further harmed because once silk,
cashmere, and wool are contaminated by the bacterium, these
garments may be destroyed because they cannot be exposed to hot
water, intense heat, bleach or hospital grade disinfectants which
are necessary to kill the bacteria. In other words, a favorite silk
or cashmere garment once owned by a parent or grandparent could be
forever ruined simply because a Class Member tried to clean it with
a "premium," "non-toxic" product.

Because Defendant continues to reap its spoils, and gives the false
impression that the Products are safe, Defendant exposes this risk
to millions of Americans every day while also knowingly selling
consumers defective Products that expose every Class Members'
household to great harm. In fact, once the truth is exposed the
Products are, at best, worthless, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff made several purchases of the Defendant's Products
from e-commerce stores.

Unilever Group, an international consumer goods company that is
comprised of two parent companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
          GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
          2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (310) 274-4663
          Email: jrg@ggallp.com

               - and -

          Amir Shenaq, Esq.
          SHENAQ PC
          3500 Lenox Road, Ste. 1500
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: (888) 909-9993
          Email: amir@shenaqpc.com

               - and -

          Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
          THE KEETON FIRM LLC
          100 S Commons, Ste 102
          Pittsburgh PA 15212
          Phone: (888) 412-5291
          Email: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com


UNITED FURNITURE: Alomari Sues Over WARN Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Frances Denise Alomari, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. UNITED FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-00261-GHD-RP (N.D. Miss., Nov. 23, 2022), is brought
against the Defendant for its violation and anticipated further
violation of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (the "WARN Act").

On the evening hours of November 21, 2022, UFI suddenly and without
any notice terminated all its employees with an electronically
transmitted notice to all its employees, in violation of the
federal WARN Act, which requires 60 days' advance written notice of
a mass termination.

The Plaintiff files this action seeking to insure that UFI complies
with the law and provides the requisite severance payments to its
terminated employees to insure that it not solicit releases of
claims of any employees without informing them of the pendency of
this action and their right to pursue their claims under the WARN
Act. The Plaintiff seeks immediate injunctive relief, as well as a
declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act precluding
UFI from circumventing the requirements of the WARN Act, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant until she was
terminated on November 21, 2022.

United Furniture Industries, Inc. is a Delaware corporation,
headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. ("Don") Barrett, Esq.
          Katherine B. Riley, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Phone: (662) 834-2488
          Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                 kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Richard Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
          2086 Old Taylor Rd, Suite 1011
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Phone: 662-380-5018
          Fax: 866-430-5459
          Email: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

               - and -

          Jerry Abdalla, Esq.
          ABDALLA LAW, PLLC
          602 Steed Rd #200
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Phone: (601) 487-4590
          Email: gmabdall@hotmail.com


UNITED FURNITURE: Faces Class Suit Over Mass Layoffs Without Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Biron at businessinsider.in reports that United Furniture
Industries, one of the largest furniture companies in the country,
laid off 2,700 employees without severance or benefits, according
to local reports.

The Mississippi-based company sent an email overnight just two days
before Thanksgiving notifying staffers it was terminating "all
employees" due to "unforeseen business circumstances" and telling
them not come in for their shifts, Victorville Daily Press
reported.

A follow-up email subsequently stated that "all benefits will be
terminated immediately without provision of COBRA," leaving
laid-off employees without health insurance.

In the emails viewed by Victorville Daily Press, United wrote it
was "forced to make the difficult decision" as a result of economic
difficulties, and the terminations would be "effective
immediately."

The company did not immediately respond to Insider's request to
comment.

The terminations impacted employees at facilities located in
Verona, Mississippi; Victorville, California; and Winston-Salem,
North Carolina. According to Pitchbook data cited by FreightWaves,
the company has nearly 3,000 staffers in 18 facilities across those
three states, as well as Vietnam.

The mass firings prompted former employee Toria Neal to file a
class-action lawsuit against the company, alleging United violated
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by not
providing the required 60 days written notice of a future closure.

In the lawsuit, Neal states that the employees were fired via email
and/or text message shortly before midnight, FreightWaves
reported.

"It is not fair to the laborers who seriously worked so hard to be
blindsided like this," an unnamed employee told FreightWaves.

The mass layoffs at the furniture company join a growing list of
terminations across industries in recent weeks as a recession
looms, ranging from tech giants like Meta and Twitter to fellow
retailers like Amazon. [GN]

UNITI GROUP: $38.9M Securities Suit Deal No Final Approval Yet
--------------------------------------------------------------
Uniti 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 7, 2022, that the
$38.9 million settlement in In re Uniti Group Inc. Securities
Litigation remains subject to final court approval.

Beginning on October 25, 2019, several purported shareholders filed
separate putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas against the Company and certain of its
officers, alleging violations of the federal securities laws based
on claims similar to those asserted in the complaint SLF Holdings,
LLC ("SLF") filed against the Company, Uniti Fiber, and certain
current and former officers of the Company ("SLF Action").

On March 12, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas consolidated the Shareholder Actions and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel in the consolidated cases under the
caption In re Uniti Group Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Class
Action").

On May 11, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the Class Action. The consolidated amended complaint
seeks to represent investors who acquired the Company's securities
between April 20, 2015 and February 15, 2019. The Class Action
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging that the Company
made materially false and misleading statements by allegedly
failing to disclose, among other things, the risk that the Spin-Off
and entry into the Master Lease violated certain debt covenants of
Windstream and/or the risk that the Master Lease purportedly could
be recharacterized as a financing instead of a "true lease." The
Class Action seeks class certification, unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other relief.

On July 10, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.

On April 1, 2021, the court issued an order denying defendants'
motion to dismiss.

On April 15, 2021, defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of
the order or, in the alternative, for certification of an appeal of
the decision to the Eighth Circuit.

On October 25, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which defendants opposed.

On December 22, 2021, the court issued an order denying defendants'
motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification of
an appeal.

On March 25, 2022, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
Class Action, on behalf of a settlement class, for $38.9 million,
to be funded entirely by the Company's insurance carriers.

On June 17, 2022, the parties signed a stipulation of settlement
and plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement.
The court granted preliminary approval on July 20, 2022.

The settlement remains subject to final court approval.

In accordance with ASC 450, the Company recorded $38.9 million of
settlement expense within general and administrative expense within
the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income during
the first quarter of 2022 and accounts payable, accrued expenses
and other liabilities, net within the Company's Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2022. Additionally,
the Company recorded the probable insurance recovery of $38.9
million as a reduction to general and administrative expense during
the first quarter of 2022 within its Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Income, and other assets within Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2022.

Uniti Group Inc. operates as a real estate investment trust. The
Company provides wireless infrastructure solutions for
communications industry. Uniti Group serves customers in the United
States and Latin America. It is based in Little Rock, Arkansas.

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Appeals Court Nixes Class Action Over Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Weekly reports that a divided appeals court on Nov. 22
rejected a potential class-action lawsuit contending that the
University of Florida should return fees to students because of a
campus shutdown early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal
came as a similar case is pending at the Florida Supreme Court. The
2nd District Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion in that
case, which was filed against the University of South Florida.

The decision on Nov. 22 said an Alachua County circuit judge should
have dismissed a lawsuit filed by University of Florida graduate
student Anthony Rojas. The lawsuit sought refunds of fees paid for
transportation, health-care and athletics services that were not
provided because of the shutdown.

Rojas alleged that UF breached a contract when it did not provide
the services. But in a seven-page majority opinion, Judge Rachel
Nordby wrote that "assorted documents attached to the complaint do
not constitute an express written contract."

As a result, she wrote that UF is shielded by sovereign immunity, a
legal concept that generally protects government agencies from
liability. Under sovereign immunity, agencies can face
breach-of-contract lawsuits if it is shown that contracts have been
violated.

"We are sympathetic to Rojas and all other students whose on-campus
experiences were clipped short and rendered non-existent by the
university's response to COVID-19," Nordby wrote in an opinion
joined by Chief Judge Lori Rowe. "And if there were a sufficient
contract attached to his complaint, we would affirm the trial court
(decision not to dismiss the case) without hesitation. But without
such an express, written agreement … sovereign immunity bars the
action."

Judge Scott Makar dissented, pointing to a series of documents that
Rojas' attorneys included in the case, such as what is known as a
"financial liability agreement" and a statement of tuition and fees
for the 2019-2020 academic year.

Makar wrote that the "explicit language of the financial liability
agreement, by itself, characterizes the relationship between the
university and its students as an ‘agreement' that must be
construed in accordance with Florida law."

"Little doubt exists that an enforceable written contract of some
sort exists; if one did not, the university would have difficulty
collecting tuition and fees for services because of the lack of
mutuality," he wrote.

After the pandemic hit in 2020, campuses throughout Florida and the
nation were shut down and students were forced to learn remotely.
That has spawned lawsuits by students at numerous colleges and
universities seeking refunds of money paid for services that became
unavailable.

The Nov. 22 ruling came about a month after the University of South
Florida went to the Supreme Court in a potential-class action
lawsuit that alleges the university breached a contract with
student ValerieMarie Moore. A panel of the 2nd District Court of
Appeal this year upheld a Hillsborough County circuit judge's
denial of a motion by the university to dismiss the case.

As another example of conflicting opinions about the issues,
Florida's 3rd District Court of Appeal rejected a potential
class-action lawsuit against Miami Dade College over fees collected
from students.

On Nov. 22, Nordby, Rowe and Makar urged the Supreme Court to wade
into the issue. They took a step known as certifying a "question of
great public importance" to the Supreme Court.

That question asked "whether sovereign immunity bars a breach of
contract claim against a state university based on the university's
failure to provide its students with access to on-campus services
and facilities." [GN]

VALLEYSTAR CREDIT: Waller Files Suit in W.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ValleyStar Credit
Union. The case is styled as Vincent Waller, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. ValleyStar Credit Union, Case
No. 4:22-cv-00126-TTC (W.D. Va., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

ValleyStar Credit Union -- https://www.valleystar.org/ -- is a
credit union in Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VALUE DRUG: Violates Antitrust Laws, Class Action Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Value Drug Co. can't represent
other colchicine purchasers in a class action alleging that Takeda
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and other generic drug makers violated
antitrust laws by shutting out competition for the gout medication,
a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled.

Value based its arguments on the expert opinion of an economist to
show antitrust impact across all similarly situated colchicine
purchasers, but the court can't assume facts to support a theory
like an economist, Judge Mark A. Kearney of the US District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said. [GN]

VAXART INC: $12MM Settlement to be Heard on January 12, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------
VAXART, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

ALL ACTIONS

Case No. 3:20-cv-05949-VC

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:   

All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
of the common stock of Vaxart, Inc. ("Vaxart") (NASDAQ ticker
symbol: "VXRT") during the period between June 15, 2020 and August
19, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") and were damaged thereby
(the "Settlement Class"):1

Please read this notice carefully, your rights MAY be affected by a
class action lawsuit pending in this court.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United State District Court
for the Northern District of California (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Action") is pending in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the plaintiffs in the Action, consisting
of Lead Plaintiffs Wei Huang and Langdon Elliot and additional
plaintiff Ani Hovhannisyan (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), have
reached a proposed partial settlement of the Action with certain
Settling Defendants (consisting of Vaxart and certain of Vaxart's
current and former directors and/or officers) that, if approved,
will (a) provide for the payment of $12,015,000.00 in cash for the
benefit of the Settlement Class, (b) resolve and release all claims
asserted against the Settling Defendants (as well as all claims
asserted against non-settling defendants Steven J. Boyd and Keith
Maher in their capacities as former Vaxart directors), and (c)
leave unresolved, unreleased, and unsettled all claims that have
been or may in the future be asserted in the Action against (i)
Armistice Capital LLC ("Armistice") (the former beneficial owner of
a majority of Vaxart's common stock) or (ii) Messrs. Boyd and Maher
in their Armistice capacities.

A hearing will be held on January 12, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. Pacific
Time, before the Hon. Vincent Chhabria, of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  Please
note that the Court has ordered that the hearing be held remotely
by video and/or telephone conferencing, using the link referenced
below. At the hearing, the Court will determine (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Settling Defendants, and the releases specified
and described in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of July 27,
2022 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether, for
purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class,
Plaintiffs should be certified as Class Representatives for the
Settlement Class, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Plaintiffs' Counsel") should be
appointed as Class Counsel; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v)
whether Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses should be
approved. If you want to attend the hearing, you can attend
remotely by accessing the following link:
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/vc.  Please note that the Court may
change the date, time, location and/or manner of the Fairness
Hearing, without another notice being sent to you.  You should
check with Lead Counsel or the Settlement website,
www.VaxartSecuritiesLitigation.com, beforehand to be sure that the
date, time and/or location/method of the hearing have not changed.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class (a "Settlement Class
Member"), your rights will be affected by the pending Action and
the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement
Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you
may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd., at Vaxart Securities Litigation,
c/o P.O.Box 173133, Milwaukee, WI 53217, 1-877-388-1723.  Copies of
the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website
maintained by the Claims Administrator at
www.VaxartSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked (if mailed), or online, no later than January 31, 2023,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If
you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound
by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is received no later than December 13, 2022, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee and Expense Application,
must be filed with the Court and delivered to Plaintiffs' Counsel
and defendant Vaxart's counsel such that they are received no later
than December 22, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Vaxart, the
other Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice.  All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to either of the below Plaintiffs' Counsel:

SCOTT+SCOTT ATTYS AT LAW LLP
William C. Fredericks, Esq.
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
The Helmsley Building
715 Hearst Avenue
New York, NY 10169
(800) 404-7770
scottcases@scott-scott.com

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
(510) 725-3000
reed@hbsslaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Vaxart Securities Litigation   
c/o A.B. Data Ltd.
P.O. Box 173133
Milwaukee, WI  53217
1-877-388-1723
info@VaxartSecuritiesLitigation.com

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement
Class by definition, as set forth in the long-form Notice of (I)
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement
Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Attorneys' Fees and
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), a copy of which may be
downloaded from the settlement website maintained by the Claims
Administrator at www.VaxartSecuritiesLitigation.com.  


VEKSTRATE ONE: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vekstrate One LLC.
The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Vekstrate One LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09928 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22,
2022).

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

Vekstrate One -- https://vekstrate.com/ -- are a product & retail
technology 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


VITAL FARMS: Usler Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nicholas A. Usler, Jon Evans, Andrew Andrada,
Hannah Vossen, Noah Tanz, Kenny Kierman, Charles Sankowich, Burcu
Karaca, Kara Gozde, Alina Yurkovsky, on behalf of themselves and a
class of similarly situated individuals v. Vital Farms, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-00447 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Nov. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-mc-00333 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as MOTION to Quash.

Vital Farms, Inc. -- https://vitalfarms.com/ -- is a food company.
The Company packages, markets and distributes shell eggs, butter
and other products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tyler Enright Baker, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Phone: (212) 634-3048
          Fax: (212) 653-8701
          Email: tbaker@sheppardmullin.com


VOYAGER EARN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of Voyager Earn Accounts and VGX tokens ("Voyager
Investment Products") between January 1, 2020 and November 9, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), against Stephen Ehrlich, Gerard
Hanshe, David Brosgol, Janice Barrilleaux, Philip Eytan, Jarrett
Lilien, and Brian Brooks (together, "Defendants"), of the important
January 10, 2023 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Voyager Earn Accounts and/or VGX tokens
during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency
fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Voyager class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9827 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. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 10, 2023.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. 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.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, Defendants violated
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 by selling non-exempt
securities without registering them. The complaint alleges that
Defendants participated in Voyager's failure to register the
Voyager Financial Products. After plaintiffs and class members
purchased Voyager Financial Products, the complaint alleges that
Voyager suspended withdrawals from its platform.

To join the Voyager class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9827 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.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Putative Class Action Pending In E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Voyager Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that a putative class
suit is pending in the Eastern District Court of New York.

On January 22, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (later
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts) against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' and expert fees and costs.

Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. a clinical-stage gene therapy company
focused on developing life-changing treatments for patients
suffering from severe neurological diseases. The company is based
in Cambridge Massachusetts.


WALMART INC: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Briefing Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALVADOR GUZMAN and JAMES
MARSHALL, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Walmart Inc. et alWALMART INC., a Delaware
corporation; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation;
WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive,  Case No. 5:21-cv-09133-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
file joint stipulation to continue class certification briefing and
hearing dates order as follows:

  -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Motion for Class
     Certification be continued from December 5, 2022, to
     February 6, 2023;

  -- The Defendants' deadline to file their Opposition to
     Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be continued
     from January 16, 2023, to March 20, 2023;


  -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Reply in support of
     their Motion for Class Certification be continued from
     January 30, 2023, to April 3, 2023;

  -- The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
     be continued from February 8, 2023, to 1:00 p.m. on April
     19, 2023;

  -- The Plaintiffs will not seek any further discovery than
     what has already been propounded and agreed upon to be
     supplemented and/or produced by Defendants for purposes of
     class certification; and

  -- In the event that the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for
     Class Certification, the Parties reserve the right to
     engage in further liability and damages discovery as to the
     certified class(es) as needed.

On October 7, 2022, this Court granted in part Plaintiffs'
Administrative Motion for a Continuance of the Class Certification
deadlines, setting the filing deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification for December 5, 2022, the deadline for
Defendants' Opposition for January 16, 2023, and the deadline for
Plaintiffs' Reply for January 30, 2023, with a hearing on the
Motion set for 1:00 p.m. on February 8, 2023.

On October 30, 2022, the Court denied Walmart's Motion to Change 11
Time, seeking a two-week extension of Walmart's deadline to file an
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Walmart has identified three witness to testify on behalf of the
company in response to the FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition notice – one
will testify about regular rate and payroll matters, one will
testify about meal period exception investigations and coding, and
one will testify about Walmart's COVID-19 screening process.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com

                - and -

          B. James Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          Laura Franklin, Esq.
          FITZPATRICK & SWANSTON
          555 S. Main Street
          Salinas, CA 93901
          Telephone: (831) 755-1311
          Facsimile: (831) 755-1319
          E-mail: bjfitzpatrick@fandslegal.com
                  lfranklin@fandslegal.com

                - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
          E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com

                - and -

          Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 800-7900
          Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
          E-mail: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com

WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over High Live-Streaming Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anwesha Nag, writing for Fansided, reports that an antitrust
lawsuit has been brought against The Walt Disney Company for what
can be called an attempt to monopolize live-streaming pay TV.

The class-action case seeks to represent all YouTube subscribers
across the platform. It accuses the entertainment juggernaut of
forced inflation of the cost of live television by negotiating
"anticompetitive" agreements that allow them to raise the roof of
market price across the industry.

Per The Hollywood Reporter, who have acquired a copy of the lawsuit
filed on Nov. 18 in California federal court, the complaint blames
Disney for doubling the rates of live-streaming television,
including that of YouTube TV.

Disney owns, operates, and controls the second largest SLPTV
provider, Hulu, which provides an SLPTV called Hulu+ Live TV.
Disney also controls ESPN, the largest cost input into every SLPTV
product in the country. Disney operates these businesses (ESPN and
Hulu) as a single economic entity, allowing it to negotiate
horizontal, anticompetitive carriage agreements for ESPN and
ESPN-related channels, which are the largest cost input to SLPTV in
the United States.

The lawsuit blames the company's collaboration with Google for
YouTube TV's basic package going up to $65 from $35. In 2021, when
YouTube TV was on the verge of losing Disney channels when
negotiations almost fell through, they promised customers
subscriptions at $15 less.

Disney sued for contracts that force rate hikes for live-streaming
TV
The plaintiffs points to Disney's contracts with live-streaming pay
TV competitors that dictate them to include ESPN in their cheapest
bundles. As ESPN is the most expensive channel Disney owns, its
inclusion inevitably makes even the lowest-priced package
expensive.

Per the THR report, ESPN's 2015 affiliate fee was four times the
size of the second highest fee, which came from TNT. Cable TV
providers like Verizon tried to get around this by offering "skinny
bundles" that didn't include ESPN. But Disney sued Verizon for
contract violations, and Verizon eventually backed down.

The current antitrust lawsuit was filed days before Bob Iger
returned as the CEO of Disney after the exit of Bob Chapek. The
plaintiffs of the lawsuit are subscribers of YouTube TV, namely
Heather Biddle, Jeffrey Kaplan, Zachary Roberts, and Joel Wilson.
[GN]

WHEELER REAL ESTATE: Files Bid to Dismiss Cedar Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust 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 and Cedar filed a motion to dismiss Cedar Realty
Shareholder Class Suit.

In Re: Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. Preferred Shareholder Litigation,
Case No.: 1:22-cv-1103, in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland (formerly captioned David Sydney, et. al. v.
Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust,
Inc. et al.).

On April 8, 2022, several purported holders of preferred stock of
Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. ("Cedar") filed a putative class action in
the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland against Cedar,
Cedar's former Board of Directors, and the Company arising out of
transactions that included the then pending acquisition of Cedar by
the Company.

The defendants removed the case to federal court.

The complaint was amended on August 24, 2022 (the "Complaint")
following the Court's denial of a motion to enjoin the merger. The
Complaint includes allegations of breach of contract against Cedar
with respect to the Articles Supplementary governing the terms of
Cedar's preferred stock and breach of fiduciary duty against the
members of Cedar's former Board of Directors. The plaintiffs allege
that Cedar breached their liquidation and conversion rights as set
forth in Cedar's Articles Supplementary, and that the members of
Cedar's former Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duty in
structuring the transactions that include the merger. The Complaint
further alleges that the Company tortiously interfered with Cedar's
contract with the owners of Cedar's preferred stock and aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by Cedar's former
Board of Directors. The Complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

The Company and Cedar have filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint
in its entirety which is not yet fully briefed.

Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. is a Maryland
corporation that serves as the general partner of Wheeler REIT,
L.P. As of March 31, 2022, the trust, through the Operating
Partnership, owned and operated fifty-seven centers and four
undeveloped properties in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

WHEELER REAL ESTATE: Krasner Shareholder Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust 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 Krasner Shareholder Class suit is ongoing.

Krasner v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et. al., Index Number
613985/2022, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York County
of Nassau.

On October 14, 2022, a purported holder of preferred stock of Cedar
filed a putative class action against Cedar, Cedar's former Board
of Directors, and the Company alleging the same claims asserted in
the In Re: Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. Preferred Shareholder
Litigation discussed above.

The Company and Cedar intend to seek procedural relief precluding
this case from proceeding in tandem with that action.

At this juncture, the outcome of the litigation is uncertain.

Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. is a Maryland
corporation that serves as the general partner of Wheeler REIT,
L.P. As of March 31, 2022, the trust, through the Operating
Partnership, owned and operated fifty-seven centers and four
undeveloped properties in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

WHEELER REAL ESTATE: Steamboat Class Suit Trial Set for May 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust 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 trial for the Steamboat Capital class suit is set for May
2023.

Steamboat Capital Partners Master Fund, LP and Steamboat Capital
Partners II, LP v. Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.,
Steamboat Capital Partners Master Fund, LP and Steamboat Capital
Partners II, LP v. Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.,
Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland. On October 25, 2021,
Steamboat Capital Partners Master Fund, LP, a Cayman Islands
exempted limited partnership and stockholder of the Company, and
Steamboat Capital Partners II, LP, a Delaware limited partnership
and stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action on
behalf of holders of the Company's Series B Preferred Stock and
Series D Preferred Stock. The complaint alleges that the Company's
rights offering of convertible debt to the Company's common
stockholders, and the notes issued pursuant to the rights offering,
breached the provisions of the Company's governing documents and
violated the rights of the holders of the Series B Preferred and
Series D Preferred with respect to accumulated and unpaid
dividends. Plaintiffs seek relief as follows: require the Company
to pay all dividends accrued, as of the date of the rights
offering, on the Series B Preferred and Series D Preferred, and
prohibit the Company from paying interest on the notes held by the
Company's common stockholders (upon exercise of the rights) until
all accrued dividends on the Series B Preferred and Series D
Preferred are paid. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the
rights offering by the Company to its common stockholders, which
resulted in the issuance of notes, when accrued Series B Preferred
dividends and Series D Preferred dividends had not been fully paid,
breached the provisions of the Company's governing documents.

In addition, the complaint contends that the Company's amendment of
its charter to remove the cumulative nature of dividends from the
Series B Preferred cannot be applied retroactively.

A trial date is set for May 2023.

The parties each filed potentially dispositive motions.

On September 20, 2022, summary judgment concluded in the Company's
favor and the plaintiffs did not file an appeal.

Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. is a Maryland
corporation that serves as the general partner of Wheeler REIT,
L.P. As of March 31, 2022, the trust, through the Operating
Partnership, owned and operated fifty-seven centers and four
undeveloped properties in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

WINN-DIXIE STORES: Faces Class Action Over Turkey Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge in Chicago has refused to let turkey producers escape
a class action lawsuit accusing them of violating federal antitrust
laws by conspiring to fix prices for their birds.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall issued an opinion Nov. 21
denying a motion to dismiss consolidated lawsuits representing
complaints from supermarket chain Winn-Dixie, as well as one group
of other so-called direct purchasers and another of "indirect
purchasers." The litigation is similar to recently settled claims
against chicken producers, where plaintiffs were largely divided
into consumers and other end users in one group and another of
direct purchasers, which included wholesalers, supermarkets and
other retailers.

Those lawsuits resulted in massive settlements worth hundreds of
millions of dollars, and tens of millions of dollars in attorney
fees for the lawyers who brought the actions.

According to Kendall, the allegations say defendant producers --
Butterball, Cargill, Cooper Farms, Farbest Foods, Foster Farms,
Hormel, Jennie-O, House of Raeford Farms, Prestage Farms, Perdue
and Tyson Foods -- had an agreement from "2010 to 2017 to exchange
competitively sensitive information and to fix prices by
restraining the supply of turkey products." The complaints also
name as co-conspirators Dakota Provisions, Kraft, Michigan Turkey
Producers, Norbest and West Liberty Foods.

Tyson settled with the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs in
February for $4.6 million, but joined in the motion to dismiss in
order to end its entanglement with Winn-Dixie.

Kendall said she had earlier dismissed without prejudice
allegations of a per se price fixing deal, but allowed a claim of
unlawful information exchange to continue. More than a year later,
the plaintiffs filed amended complaints, which the producers
allowed provided they could still challenge the sufficiency of the
new allegations.

Like the chicken lawsuits, the turkey complaints center around
claims producers boosted profits by sharing internal data from a
publication called Agri Stats, suppressing supply in order to
elevate prices, even as the price of feeding and raising the birds
dropped. The plaintiffs also say "the National Turkey Federation
provided a forum for coordination" and offered allegations of
abnormal pricing demonstrating how the conduct affected pricing.

"Plaintiffs' amended complaint includes new allegations relating
specifically to the per se claim," Kendall wrote, "including that
defendants engaged in parallel conduct, including supply cuts
between 2008-2009 and 2012-2013, directly encouraged each other to
cut production in 2009, engaged in private communications about
production cuts and pricing, actively used Agri Stats reports to
monitor production levels and used participation in trade
associations to exchange current and forecasted production
information."

Kendall declined to grant dismissal on grounds Winn-Dixie missed by
a month the deadline to join opposition to the dismissal effort,
then rejected the defendants' argument the allegations against them
are too reliant on circumstantial evidence to survive. She said the
plaintiffs "outlined allegations of activity within at least one of
the two-year periods where each defendant reduced supply" and,
although details involving Prestage and Raeford were lacking
compared to the other producers, the larger context of the
pleadings was sufficient.

By alleging parallel conduct among turkey producers, along with
four specific additional factors to bolster claims of a conspiracy,
the consolidated complaints effectively support the claims of
exchanging competitive information through Agri Stats and other
trade organizations to which they all belonged as a means of
inflating prices.

"While defendants present alternative explanations for the plus
factors outlined, plaintiffs are only required to allege
plausibility at this point in the proceedings," Kendall wrote.
"When the allegations are considered as a whole, Plaintiffs' claims
give rise to an inference of a price-fixing conspiracy sufficient
to state a claim and survive the motion to dismiss."

Winn-Dixie is represented by attorney Patrick J. Ahern, of Ahern
and Associates, of Chicago.

Other direct purchaser plaintiffs are represented in the action by
attorneys Shana E. Scarlett and Steve Berman, of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro, of Chicago and Berkeley, California.

Indirect commercial and institutional purchaser plaintiffs are
represented by attorneys W. Joseph Bruckner and Simeon A. Morbey,
of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, of Minneapolis; Blaine Finley and
Jonathan W. Cuneo, of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, of Washinton, D.C.;
Robert A. Clifford and Shannon M. McNulty, of the Clifford Law
Offices, of Chicago; and Don Barrett, of Barrett Law Group, of
Lexington, Mississippi, and others with those firms.

Turkey producer and Agri Stats defendants are represented by
attorneys James D. Baldridge, of Venable LLP, of Washington, D.C.;
William H. Stallings and Britt M. Miller, of Mayer Brown, of
Washington, D.C. and Chicago; Kirstin B. Ives, of Falkenberg Ives,
of Chicago; Jennifer A.L. Battle, of Carpenter Lipps & Leland, of
Columbus, Ohio; Daniel D. Birk, of Eimer Stahl, of Chicago; Jordan
M. Tank, of Lipe Lyons Murphy Nahrstadt & Pontikis, of Chicago;
Tiffany Rider Rohrbaugh, of Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider, of
Washington, D.C.; Marc E. Rosenthal, of Proskauer Rose, of Chicago;
Sybil Dunlop, of Greene Espel, of Minneapolis; Michael K.
Sciaccotta, of Dentons US LLP, of Chicago; Colby A. Kingsbury, of
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, of Chicago; Gregory G. Wrobel, of
Vedder Price, of Chicago; Jacob D. Koering, of Miller Canfield
Paddock & Stone, of Chicago; and William S. Cherry III, of Manning
Fulton & Skinner, of Raleigh, North Carolina; and other attorneys
with those firms and others. [GN]

WORKHORSE GROUP: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Workhorse 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 and
the defendants continue to defend a shareholder derivative
litigation.

A total of eight substantively similar derivative actions were
originally filed for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment
against Duane Hughes, Steve Schrader, Stephen Fleming, Robert
Willison, Anthony Furey, Gregory Ackerson, H. Benjamin Samuels,
Raymond J. Chess, Harry DeMott, Gerald B. Budde, Pamela S. Mader,
Michael L. Clark and Jacqueline A. Dedo in state court in Nevada,
state court in Ohio, and federal courts in Nevada, Ohio and
California (collectively, the "Shareholder Derivative Litigation").
In these actions, the plaintiffs allege the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by allowing or causing the Company to
violate the federal securities laws as alleged in the Securities
Class Action discussed above and by selling Company stock and
receiving other compensation while allegedly in possession of
material non-public information about the prospect of the USPS
awarding the contract to an electric vehicle manufacturer given
electrifying the USPS’s entire fleet allegedly have been
impractical and expensive. The plaintiffs seek damages and
disgorgement in an indeterminate amount.

The three derivative cases filed in the Central District of
California were consolidated into a single action on June 21, 2021
(under Case No. 2:21-cv-04202).

On April 18, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint in the consolidated action.

On June 2, 2022, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the
Company joined in with respect to the arguments related to the
plaintiffs' lack of standing, as well as a motion to stay the case
pending resolution of the Securities Class Action.

On October 3, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
stay the action pending resolution of the Securities Class Action.


On October 2, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
stay the action pending resolution of the Securities Class Action.

A fourth case, originally filed in the Southern District of Ohio,
was transferred to the Central District of California on November
5, 2021 (under Case No. 2:21-cv-08734) and assigned to the same
judge who presides over the Securities Class Action and the
consolidated Central District of California derivative action.

Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on May 2, 2022.

On July 22, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to stay
the action pending resolution of the Securities Class Action.

Two further actions, both filed in the Eight Judicial District
Court of the State of Nevada in and for Clark County, were
consolidated on January 7, 2022 (under Case No. A-21-833050-B).

On January 24, 2022, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action in
Nevada state court filed their consolidated amended complaint,
which was also revised to include the additional allegations made
in the Amended Complaint in the Securities Class Action discussed
above.

On March 22, 2022, the defendants and the Company filed a motion to
stay the Nevada state court consolidated action, and the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the consolidated action, which the Company
joined in with respect to the arguments related to the plaintiffs'
lack of standing.

Plaintiffs' oppositions to these motions were filed on June 3,
2022. Defendants' replies were filed on July 15, 2022.

On August 4, 2022, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated action, but granted the defendants' motion
to stay the action pending resolution of the Securities Class
Action.

The seventh shareholder derivative action was filed on June 22,
2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
under Case No. 2:22-cv-00980. On October 17, 2022, the Court
granted the parties' stipulation to stay the case pending
resolution of the Securities Class Action.

The eighth shareholder derivative action was filed on August 19,
2022 in the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, Ohio under Case
No. A 2203019. By stipulation of the parties, the deadline for
defendants and nominal defendant to respond to the complaint has
been extended to November 16, 2022.

As discussed more fully above, on October 24, 2022, the Company and
the individual defendants entered into a binding term sheet to
resolve the shareholder derivative actions pending in the Central
District of California, the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada and State District Court of Nevada as well as
the related Securities Class Action.

The settlement will be subject to final documentation, public
notice and court approval by the State District Court of Nevada,
and there can be no assurance that the settlement will be approved
on those terms or at all.

The parties have agreed to promptly request that the courts in such
actions stay all proceedings and/or enter an order enjoining all
other stockholders of the Company from commencing, instituting, or
prosecuting any similar claims.

Although these actions purport to seek recovery on behalf of the
Company, the Company will incur certain expenses due to
indemnification and advancement obligations with respect to the
defendants.

The Company understands that defendants believe these actions are
without merit and intends to support them as they pursue all legal
avenues to defend themselves fully.

Workhorse Group Inc. is a technology company focused on providing
sustainable and cost-effective solutions to the commercial
transportation sector. As an American manufacturer, the company
create all-electric delivery trucks and drone systems, including
the technology that optimizes the way these mechanisms operate.
The
company is based in Loveland, Ohio.

WORKHORSE GROUP: Settlement in Securities Suit for Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Workhorse 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 settlement in
a securities class suit is subject to court approval, public
notice, and final documentation.

The Company, Duane Hughes, Steve Schrader, Robert Willison and
Gregory Ackerson are defendants in a putative class action (the
"Securities Class Action") brought in the Central District of
California (Case No.2:21-cv-02072) on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities from March 10, 2020 through May 10, 2021.

The amended complaint in this action, filed by lead plaintiff,
Timothy M. Weis, on July 16, 2021, alleges the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by intentionally or recklessly making
material misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the
Company's participation in the bidding process to manufacture the
new fleet of USPS next generation delivery vehicles, the prospect
of the USPS awarding the contract to Workhorse given alleged
deficiencies in Workhorse's proposal, the Company's manufacturing
abilities generally and the Company's nonbinding "backlog" in its
vehicles.

Lead plaintiff seeks certification of a class and monetary damages
in an indeterminate amount.

The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss in substantial
part, and the Securities Class Action is currently scheduled to
begin trial on March 19, 2024.

On October 24, 2022, the Company entered into a binding term sheet
to resolve this litigation as well as the related Shareholders
Derivative Litigation described below.

Under the terms of the settlement of the class action and in
resolution of all claims,

Workhorse will pay $15 million in cash, which will be funded fully
by proceeds of available insurance, and $20 million payable in
shares of Workhorse stock.

The settlement will be subject to final documentation, public
notice and approval by the Court, and there can be no assurance
that the settlement will be approved on those terms or at all.

Workhorse Group Inc. is a technology company focused on providing
sustainable and cost-effective solutions to the commercial
transportation sector. As an American manufacturer, the company
create all-electric delivery trucks and drone systems, including
the technology that optimizes the way these mechanisms operate. The
company is based in Loveland, Ohio.


XCEL ENERGY: Judge Denied Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Marshall Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aldo Svaldi at  denverpost.com reports that  first Judicial
District Judge Christopher Zenisek has rejected a motion by Xcel
Energy to dismiss a class action lawsuit that blamed the state's
largest utility for causing or contributing to the hugely
destructive Marshall fire on Dec. 30.

Attorney James Avery with Denver Injury Law LLC in Boulder and the
Schack Law Group in San Diego filed the case, Kupfner vs. Xcel
Energy, in late March, on behalf of lead plaintiffs George and Lisa
Kupfner, owners of Eldorado Liquor.

The lawsuit alleges that Xcel Energy equipment "substantially
caused or contributed to the cause, origin and continuation" of the
fire, which burnt more than 6,000 acres and destroyed more than
1,000 homes and businesses in Superior, Louisville, Lafayette and
unincorporated Boulder County.

Xcel Energy sought to have the lawsuit dismissed on grounds that it
was unfounded and that it was not negligent in the upkeep of its
equipment. But on Nov. 22, Zenisek denied the motion, allowing the
lawsuit to move forward.

"This order clears the way for Xcel Energy to potentially be held
accountable for the $2 billion in losses suffered by thousands of
citizens impacted by the Boulder Marshall fire," Avery said in a
release.

A definitive cause of the fire, which was fueled by winds topping
100 miles an hour, remains undetermined. A video taken the morning
of Dec. 30 shows Xcel equipment arcing or releasing sparks near
where authorities believe the fire started. But a smoldering
underground coal fire in the area and human activity are also under
investigation.

"Plaintiffs here establish a plausible and reasonable inference
that Defendants' powerlines, known to contain potential for fire
danger, arced and thereby caused the Marshall fire. They further
allege that better maintenance or construction could have prevented
the arcing or reduced the Marshall Fire's impact," Zenisek said in
his order rejecting Xcel's motion to dismiss the case.

Zenisek is a judge in the state's First Judicial District
representing Jefferson and Gilpin counties. He was appointed to
oversee the Marshall fire case after all the judges in the 20th
Judicial District, which covers Boulder County, recused themselves.
He travels to Boulder to hear the case.

Xcel Energy said after the case was first filed that it had not
seen any evidence that its equipment ignited the fire, and repeated
that stance.

"We have conducted our own investigation into the cause of the
Marshall fire, and based on that review, we do not believe the fire
was caused by our equipment or operations. We've also reviewed our
maintenance records and believe our system was properly
maintained," said Tyler Bryant, a spokesman for Xcel Energy, in an
email.

Updated 10:30 a.m. Nov. 27, 2022 This story has been updated to
correct the affiliation of the judge who made this ruling. Judge
Christopher Zenisek sits on the bench of the First Judicial
District. [GN]

YORKBRIDGE WEALTH: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yorkbridge Wealth
Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Yorkbridge
Wealth Partners, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10009 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23,
2022).

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

Yorkbridge Wealth Partners, LLC -- https://yorkbridgewealth.com/ --
offers investment advisory services. The Company provides financial
planning, portfolio, and investment management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


ZOETIS AUSTRALIA: Horse Owners' $53M Hendra Vaccine Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Giselle Wakatama and Keely Johnson, writing for ABC News, report
that the Federal Court has dismissed an application for $53 million
in damages in a class action by horse owners over alleged deaths
and side effects from the Hendra vaccine.

The horse owners, from New South Wales and Queensland, claimed that
animal pharmaceuticals company Zoetis Australia Pty Ltd did not
provide adequate warnings about potential side effects of the
vaccine on their horses.

About half a million doses have been administered to horses across
Australia since 2012.

More than 1,500 horses experienced adverse reactions and some
died.

Lawyers for the horse owners argued their animals suffered side
effects from the vaccine that led to loss and damage.

Judge: 'Too many uncertainties'
Alleged losses or damages included reduced financial value of
horses, veterinary treatment expenses, loss of income generated by
the horse, loss of opportunity to gain income from the horse and
the replacement value of the horse.

But the court rejected the claims.

"There were too many uncertainties to find the vaccine caused any
serious side effects," Justice Steve Rares said.

"Based on the expert evidence, none of the clinical signs on which
the applicant relied as serious or debilitating side effects was,
in fact, a side effect of Equivac HeV, except in respect of those
that I found were transient side effects."

Mr Rares said some of the transient side effects were lumps, hives,
lethargy and pain.

Zoetis has always denied any wrongdoing or liability and maintained
the vaccine was "safe and effective".

The Hendra virus can be passed to humans from horses infected by
fruit bats (flying foxes).

It has killed more than 100 horses and four people in 60 separate
outbreaks in QLD and NSW.

'Disappointing result', says horse owner
Newcastle-based horse owner Sue Middleton said she was disappointed
by the court ruling.

"It's not the result they wanted," she said.

"But we do have to take away the positives that we got the case to
court which in itself was quite a challenge."

Ms Middleton was instrumental in helping the class action.

"I'd put together a database," she said.

"I've been collecting information over time on over 110 horses
their owners believed to have died after vaccination.

"A lot of those cases formed the basis of this case."

'Never seen anything like it'
Ms Middleton said she was "one of many people that lost a horse".


"I found him [her horse] a couple of days after [a vaccination]
with a temperature almost 41 degrees, which is very high," she
said.

"He couldn't walk, couldn't eat . . . I'd never seen anything like
it."

Ms Middleton said she, and many other horse owners she knew, would
never use the Hendra vaccine again.

"I vaccinated 15 horses at the time and I lost one," she said.

"I have never given it to any other of my horses and I have never
purchased a horse that has had it [the vaccine]." [GN]

[*] Canada Shifts to Slightly Stricter Class Certification Process
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Macnab, writing for Lexpert, reports that swinging from one
extreme to the other, "class actions are often like a pendulum,"
says Emily MacKinnon, a litigator and partner at Osler Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP in Vancouver. For a while, courts had shown "great
willingness to certify," and certification seemed like a
"procedural bump in the road." But that is shifting, she says.  

"We're seeing courts apply a slightly stricter standard and really
requiring that there be some meat to the action before they
certify."

Product liability and privacy cases exemplify this trend, says
Paul-Erik Veel, partner at Lenczner Slaght and commercial litigator
whose practice focuses include class actions.  

Courts have denied certification in several product liability
cases, despite a potential risk and negligence, where class members
could not show they were out of pocket or suffered any harm. For
example, privacy cases where personal information may have been
lost or accessed may also require evidence that the information was
misappropriated, sold, or used.  

"One of the roles of class actions that they've evolved into is
partially a substitute for the regulatory system," says Veel. "We
don't necessarily have the most robust regulation in a lot of
areas, and a lot of enforcers are underfunded, so private
plaintiff's counsel become the way that defendants are held to
account.

"And that's fine and makes good sense. Except that courts are
really starting to push back on that role and say, 'Well, look. You
can't just sue someone because maybe something went wrong or
something bad happened. It's still a lawsuit. You still need to
have a person or people or a class who have actually suffered some
harm.'"

Cheryl Woodin has seen many class actions following disclosures
from regulated industries, including for privacy-related issues in
the securities space and for safety recalls in pharmaceuticals,
health devices, and the automotive industry.

"The disclosure gets made. The class action gets started. But then
the court says, where's the harm?" says Woodin, partner and co-head
of the class actions practice at Bennett Jones LLP.  

"If there's no harm, it doesn't matter whether you call it an
unjust enrichment, or a negligence, or a breach of a statute; you
actually don't have a cause of action."

She traces this tendency to two Supreme Court of Canada cases:
Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock and 1688782 Ontario Inc. v.
Maple Leaf Foods Inc.  

In Babstock, plaintiffs applied to certify a class action against
Atlantic Lottery Corp. (ALC), an organization established by the
four Atlantic provincial governments to approve the operation of
video lottery terminal games (VLTs). The plaintiffs sought to
represent any resident of Newfoundland and Labrador who played VLTs
in the six years prior. They alleged that VLTs are inherently
dangerous and deceptive, and ALC had breached a duty to warn users
of the risk of addiction and suicidal ideation associated with
their use. The plaintiffs' alleged causes of action were waiver of
tort, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and they asked for
a gain-based disgorgement of profits ALC had earned by licensing
VLTs.  

The plaintiffs were successful at the Supreme Court of Newfoundland
and Labrador and the Court of Appeal. However, in a 5-4 decision,
the SCC found that their claims were doomed to fail and that the
plaintiffs could not claim a portion of ALC's profits without
showing that they suffered a loss.

"Although disgorgement is available for some forms of wrongdoing
without proof of damage (for example, breach of fiduciary duty), it
is a far leap to find that disgorgement without proof of damage is
available as a general proposition in response to a defendant's
negligent conduct," said Justice Russell Brown, writing for the
SCC's majority. "Granting disgorgement for negligence without proof
of damage would result in a remedy arising out of legal
nothingness, and would be a radical and uncharted development. This
is not the type of incremental change that falls within the remit
of courts applying the common law."

Maple Leaf Foods arose after the company recalled its products due
to contamination and created an approximately eight-week meat
shortage for franchisees of Mr. Sub restaurants. Maple Leaf and Mr.
Sub were under an exclusive supply agreement. The franchisees
brought a class action claiming economic loss and reputational
injury, seeking compensation for loss of past and future sales,
profits, capital value, and goodwill. The Ontario Superior Court
certified the class action, and both sides sought summary judgment.
The motion judge found Maple Leaf owed the franchisees a duty of
care, but the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed that decision. An
SCC majority then confirmed the Court of Appeal's ruling.  

"In Maple Leaf Foods, the Supreme Court came back and said: No, we
meant what we said in Winnipeg Condominium so many years ago," says
Woodin. "You really can't sue for shoddy products. We're not here
to enforce a contract with a manufacturer that you don't want to
buy from again because you don't think you got good value for your
money. We are really here to deal with safety issues in the context
of negligence claims. And if you don't have that, and you can't
prove an imminent risk of harm, then we're not going to certify the
case."

Christopher Richter, a partner at Torys LLP in Montreal, says
Bourbonniere v. Yahoo! Inc., 2019 QCCS 2624 and Setoguchi v. Uber
BV, 2021 ABQB 18 demonstrated the courts taking a stricter approach
in class actions in the privacy realm where the claim lacks
tangible harm.  

Bourbonniere v. Yahoo! Inc. was the Quebec class action following
the Yahoo! data breach exposing the personal information of at
least 500 million user accounts in 2014 - part of a series of
security breaches the company experienced over several years.
Quebec Superior Court Justice Chantal Tremblay refused to authorize
the class action partly because the representative plaintiff did
not show that she had experienced any out-of-pocket costs or any
harm that rose above normal inconveniences and frustrations.  

A failure to show harm or loss also led Alberta's Court of King's
Bench Justice John Rooke to deny certification in Setoguchi v.
Uber. Hackers attacked Uber in 2016 and accessed the names, phone
numbers, and emails of around 800,000 Canadian customers. The
hackers demanded a ransom, and Uber paid $100,000 for a guarantee
that they would destroy the data. But there appeared to be "no
evidence of actual first instance or post-breach harm … only
speculation about a future possibility of loss or harm," said
Justice Rooke.   

"This area is moving quickly," adds Richter, noting that courts
authorized two privacy class actions in Quebec in August. In
Sciscente v. Audi Canada Inc., 2022 QCCS 2911 and Zuckerman v. MGM
Resorts International, 2022 QCCS 2914, the plaintiffs argued there
was actual harm because the breach forced them to purchase a credit
monitoring service to guard against misuse of their personal
information.

"It remains to be seen whether such allegations of fact at the
authorization stage will give plaintiffs anything more than a
temporary procedural victory," says Richter.  

In Ontario, tougher certification is also the result of the
province's 2020  
amendments to the Class Proceedings Act.

"Practically speaking," says MacKinnon, "one of the big changes is
that it permitted defendants to bring motions before certification
to get rid of the case at an early stage. That's a really big deal
because until the action is certified, the plaintiff's lawyers are
bearing a lot of risk. So, if a defendant can get rid of the case
at an early stage before it's certified, then there's really no
possibility for the plaintiff to be able to get it settled. They
lose a lot of leverage."

After the amendments, she says many Ontario class actions migrated
to BC, which is perceived as a more plaintiff-friendly
jurisdiction. But judges in BC followed the trajectory of Alberta
and the rest of the country by requiring "some meat in the action"
before they certify it.  

Recent BC case law has also "opened the door wider" on defendants
bringing a motion before certification, says MacKinnon. In 2021,
British Columbia v. The Jean Coutu Group (PJC) Inc. found there is
no presumption that certification is the first procedural matter
heard and determined in a class action.  

"It's a case-by-case analysis," she says, adding that the ruling is
only a year old and has not been applied in many cases. "But I have
certainly already noticed that it changes the dynamic, and it
certainly changes a judge's willingness to look at a defendant's
request to bring a motion before certification." [GN]

[*] Israeli Class Suit Reforms May Affect Public Companies' Rights
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eyal Nachshon, Esq., of Barnea Jaffa Lande, in an article for
Lexology, reports that recently, the Ministry of Justice published
Draft Amendment No. 4 to the Class Action Regulations. This
amendment proposes to prospectively include in the public
electronic database known as the Registry of Class Actions copies
of the statements of response filed by respondents (potential
defendants) to motions to certify class actions. Statements of
response will thus be exposed for all to see. This contrasts with
the current situation whereby the registry contains only copies of
statements of claim and motions to certify class actions filed by
petitioners (potential plaintiffs initiating the proceeding). The
explanatory notes to the amendment state that the purpose of the
proposed amendment is to expand the scope of information about
class actions accessible by the public, due to the importance of
the proper management of the registry and in order to improve its
use.

Although the proposed amendment advances the worthy goal of
increasing transparency, it is extremely prejudicial against
respondents to motions to certify class actions. This is especially
true of public companies, often the defendants in these types of
proceedings. Passage of the amendment could infringe on such
companies' right to privacy and adversely impact their business
activities in an imbalanced and disproportionate manner.

Court Regulations (Review of Files)

As is well known, public access to judicial proceedings is
recognized in Israel as a constitutional right. However, this is
not an absolute right. Accordingly, it does not mean that anyone is
automatically entitled to review statements of claim filed in cases
to which they are not a party. The possibility of reviewing court
case files is regulated by the Courts and Labor Courts Regulations
(Review of Files), 2003. These regulations prescribe that when a
court examines an application to review a case file, it must strike
a balance between the applicant's right of review and the protected
interests of the parties to the proceedings, including the right to
privacy of the litigants themselves, particularly the rights to
business privacy and to safeguard the confidentiality of sensitive
information.

Accordingly, under normal circumstances, a third party applying to
review a case file must declare the purpose and scope of the
review. The court examines the application and weighs it against
the concrete rationale and protected interests presented to the
court by the parties to the proceedings. The current proposed
amendment to the Class Action Regulations therefore contradicts the
Court Regulations (Review of Files). If this amendment is enacted,
any person, in any case and without providing justification, may
review a statement of response filed by a respondent-company to the
motion to certify a class action filed against it.

Foundation Stone of Legal Protection

Unlike a statement of defense in an "ordinary" proceeding, a
statement of response filed in relation to a motion to certify a
class action is a long and detailed document that serves as the
foundation stone of the respondent-company's legal defense. The
statement of response is not merely a tractate of "denials."
Rather, the law requires the respondent to lay out the full factual
foundation intended to refute the petitioner's allegations, as well
as its legal arguments. To substantiate their defense arguments,
respondent-companies' statements of response usually must disclose
sales data, business plans, queries received from customers,
correspondence with the regulatory authorities, management
decisions, board of director resolutions, financial data, and more.
An affidavit signed by a manager of the respondent-company must
support such information. In addition, the respondent-companies
must provide confidential documents, such as meeting minutes,
presentations, procedures, statements of financial position,
ledgers, and summaries of internal discussions.

Under these circumstances, granting a sweeping permit to the
general public to review statements of response to class action
motions, in any case, may cause substantive harm to
respondent-companies. Firstly, it may impede companies' ability to
defend themselves, due to the concern that presenting particular
defense arguments will force them to disclose sensitive and
non-public information. Secondly, it may cause a chilling effect on
free and open discussions during management meetings or with
regulatory authorities, due to the concern these sensitive
discussions might be exposed at some later date. Thirdly, it may
incentivize business competitors and interested parties to file
frivolous motions to certify class actions against companies solely
for the purpose of forcing them to disclose confidential data, such
as sales volumes, which are ordinarily out of reach. Finally, it
could even be exploited by interested parties in ordinary legal
proceedings against companies to circumvent document discovery
procedures in those cases and use the statement of response to reap
personal benefit. This constitutes substantive infringement of
respondent-companies' procedural and fundament rights at the
earliest stage of a proceeding, particularly because it is
certainly possible the motion to certify the class action will
ultimately be dismissed in limine.

The Importance of Deliberating Each Case Individually

These concerns are not merely theoretical. A relevant example is
the Rybka Technologies case (Permission for Civil Appeal 1619/20)
the Israeli Supreme Court recently deliberated. In that case, a
shareholder of Israel Chemicals Ltd. filed a motion to certify a
class action against ICL alleging concealment of material
information from the public in relation to a project promoted by
ICL. During the proceeding, Rybka Technologies filed an application
to review some 2,000 ICL documents containing trade secrets and
sensitive business information, all of which it took from a
statement of claim filed by ICL in another proceeding pertaining to
that same project. The Supreme Court examined Rybka Technologies'
allegations and weighed them against the nature of the data and the
arguments presented by ICL. The Court ultimately rejected Rybka
Technologies' claims that these are technical data pertaining to
the project and ruled that the documents constitute confidential
information that is not routinely disclosed within the framework of
review applications.

The enactment of the proposed amendment to the Class Action
Regulations would have quashed the important deliberation of this
case. As stated, if the amendment is enacted, not only will the
plaintiffs or shareholders of a public company have access to the
confidential information, but so will the general public.

A Balanced Arrangement

In the case of public companies, the proposed amendment's potential
harm is even greater. Public companies are subject to public
reporting obligations and must take into account, inter alia, the
materiality of the information in conformity with securities laws.
The mere fact that a motion to certify a class action has been
filed should not give plaintiffs, and certainly not the general
public, an a priori right to rummage through confidential documents
and information, especially not during a preliminary stage before
the class action has even been certified. It is inconceivable that
the mere filing of a motion to certify a class action, as baseless
and futile as it might be, will automatically grant the public a
right not vested it under corporate law, securities law, or the
Court Regulations (Review of Files).

In lieu of the proposed amendment, a more moderate and balanced
arrangement would require a defendant-company to disclose solely
the statement of defense that it files in a class action after it
has already received certification. This would ensure the public is
able to access information only after the courts have already been
convinced that a prima facie foundation for a class action was
presented. The scope of the information that companies will
disclose will also be more moderate since, as stated, statements of
defense usually include a condensed version of the defense claims,
since there is no obligation to attach the entire evidentiary
foundation substantiating the defense arguments to the statement of
defense. [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Air & Liquid Faces Personal Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Air & Liquid, and in some cases, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, are
defendants (among a number of defendants, often in excess of 50
defendants) in claims filed in various state and federal courts,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos-containing components historically used in some products
manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3AYykE1


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Int'l. Has 211 Cases Pending at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natura & Co Holding S.A.'s subsidiary, Avon International, was
named a defendant (along with other manufacturers of cosmetics and
other products that, unlike those marketed by Avon, were designed
with asbestos) in personal injury lawsuits brought in the US
courts, according to the Company's Form 6-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of September 30, 2022, there were 211 individual cases pending
against Avon International and during the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2022, 89 new cases were started and 28 were closed or
settled. The value of the settlements was not material,
individually or in the aggregate, for the operating results of the
Company or the subsidiary Avon International.

A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3VI4qvT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CarParts.com, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Automotive Specialty
Accessories and Parts, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named defendants in
several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that
contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes.
WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the
Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and
coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made
basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant
out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be
material to its consolidated financial statements.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3VmNXgI

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Still Receives Product Liability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related product liability claims continue to be filed
against two of CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiaries: CIRCOR
Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke, Inc.) ("Hoke"), the
stock of which the Company acquired in 1998, and Spence Engineering
Company, Inc., the stock of which the Company acquired in 1984,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Hoke subsidiary was divested in January 2020 through the sale
of the I&S business. However, the Company has indemnified the buyer
for asbestos-related claims that are made against Hoke. Due to the
nature of the products supplied by these entities, the markets they
serve and the Company's historical experience in resolving these
claims, the Company does not expect that these asbestos-related
claims will have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.

During the second quarter of 2021, the Company was notified of a
contract termination by one of its Industrial segment customers.
The basis for termination is under dispute and the ultimate outcome
of this matter is uncertain. During the fourth quarter of 2021 the
Company recorded a full allowance against the outstanding
receivables resulting in a charge of $6.3 million. The Company also
has outstanding guarantees of its performance under the contract in
the aggregate amount of $3.4 million. Further, the Company is
exposed to claims from sub-contractors for contract termination.
The Company has received claims from sub-contractors and has
accrued an additional $1.6 million in charges during the fourth
quarter of 2021 as its best estimate of probable loss. Should the
negotiations or settlement process be unfavorable for the Company,
the Company may be unable to collect the outstanding receivables,
be exposed to risk of loss on the outstanding performance
guarantees, additional claims from sub-contractors, losses in
excess of amounts accrued on claims from sub-contractors and
potential future claims should any be asserted.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3XJeQgz


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Faces Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., and many others, are defendants in suits
that have been brought in New York State and federal courts,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the
Utilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The suits that have been resolved, which are
many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or
for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The
amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total
billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these
amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of
previous claims. At September 30, 2022, Con Edison and CECONY have
accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential
liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be
brought over the next 15 years as shown in the following table.
These estimates were based upon a combination of modeling,
historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Courts have
begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may continue, to
apply different standards for determining liability in asbestos
suits than the standard that applied historically. As a result, the
Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable possibility
of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability accrued for the
suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of
such loss. In addition, certain current and former employees have
claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on
alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted
to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through
rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers'
compensation claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3OuQ3Z8

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Defends Personal Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc and certain of its subsidiaries,
along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in
personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos
containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These cases typically involve product
liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture,
sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained
asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. We
cannot predict with certainty the extent to which we will be
successful in litigating or otherwise resolving lawsuits on
satisfactory terms in the future and we continue to evaluate
different strategies related to asbestos claims filed against us
including entity restructuring and judicial relief. Unfavorable
rulings, judgments or settlement terms could have a material
adverse impact on our business and financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3UmTClw

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Faces 1,962 Exposure Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, for the nine months ended
September 30, 2022 and 2021, has received approximately 1,962 and
2,156 new asbestos-related claims, respectively, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or
plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of
manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products, nor has
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or workers'
compensation insurance to companies in the business of
manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits
principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period
from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have learned
of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things,
improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not
have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos
litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by
numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in
various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors
unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted
against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's defenses include that: (i)
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty to the plaintiffs;
(ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; and (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts
have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3U37D7I


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Faces 2,075 Lawsuits as of Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "To date, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant.
As of September 30, 2022, there were approximately 2,075 such
lawsuits. We believe that we have substantial insurance coverage,
subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect
to asbestos claims. We also have valid defenses to these
asbestos-related personal injury claims and intend to continue to
defend them vigorously. Should the volume of litigation grow
substantially, it is possible that we could incur significant costs
resolving these cases. We do not expect the resolution of pending
asbestos litigation and proceedings to have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash
flows. In any given period or periods, however, it is possible such
proceedings or matters could have an adverse effect on our results
of operations, financial condition or cash flows. At September 30,
2022, we had $12.9 million reserved for these matters.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3FeBExm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Assumes Defense of PI Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Industrial Services Group Inc., has assumed defense of the
matter subject to a reservation of rights and objection to the
claim for indemnification, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The acquiror of certain assets from a former operating unit of the
Company has been named as a defendant in an asbestos personal
injury lawsuit and has submitted a claim for indemnification and
tendered defense of the matter to the Company.

Neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured,
produced, or distributed asbestos fiber, the material that
allegedly caused the injury underlying this action. The Company
does not expect that this claim will have a material adverse effect
on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
Moreover, during 2012, the Company secured insurance coverage that
will help to reimburse the defense costs and potential indemnity
obligations of its former operating unit relating to these claims.
The Company intends to vigorously defend all currently active
actions, and it does not anticipate that this action will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position, results of
operations or liquidity. However, the outcomes of any legal action
cannot be predicted and, therefore, there can be no assurance that
this will be the case.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3OUsxFq


                            *********

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 ***