/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221215.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, December 15, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 244

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Kristosik Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Manning Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Morris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Shartzer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
A-ALERT SECURITY: Salgado Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois

AEROVIRONMENT INC: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit
AGS INC: Bids to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Granted in Part
ALBERTSON'S COMPANIES: Court Dismisses All of Sapienza's Claims
AUDIOPHILE MUSIC: Allen Suit Removed to C.D. California
AVIATOR GEAR INC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BERING HOME CENTER: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLUEMERCURY INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BP EXPLORATION: Smith's Bid to Disqualify Judge Vitter Denied
BRENT WILLIS: Clifton Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation
BUILD-A-BEAR: TCPA Suit Tentative Settlement for Court Approval

CITY OF SYRACUSE: Hanks Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: US Sugar's Judgment on Pleadings Bid Granted
CVS PHARMACY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Daichendt BIPA Suit
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: VMware Class Suit Settlement Approved
DOCUSIGN INC: Bid to Dismiss Weston Suit Pending

DOCUSIGN INC: Fox Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed in California
DOCUSIGN INC: Lapin & Votto Shareholder Derivative Suits Stayed
DOCUSIGN INC: Potteti Securities Class Suit Stayed in Delaware
DOMO INC: Continues to Defend Volonte Securities Class Suit
ENBRIDGE US: Can Compel Arbitration in Whitaker FLSA Class Suit

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Kisciras Files FCRA Suit in D. New Jersey
FACTORY DIRECT MODELS: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FAY SERVICING: Rempel Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Grijalva Files FCRA Suit in D. Arizona
FIVE BELOW INC: Hicks Sues Over ADA Violation

FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Lyle Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
FLORIDA INSTITUTE: Navarro Files Suit in M.D. Florida
FREUDENBERG MEDICAL: Maya Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
GATEWAY DIAGNOSTIC: Standerfer FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
HUNTER MECHANICAL: Safi Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.

INNOVATIVE FACILITY: Aires Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Guerin Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct
JOSEPH R. BIDEN: Rhone Files Suit in C.D. California
KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Gennock Putative Class Suit
KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Miles Putative Class Suit

KIRKLAND'S INC: To File Bid to Junk Sicard Class Suit
LESSEN INC: Green Files Suit in S.D. Florida
MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: Branch Sues Over Unauthorized Recording
MICHAEL DIAZ: Pilgrim's Pride Files Petition in D. South Carolina
NETFLIX INC: City of East St. Louis Appeals CVCL Suit Dismissal

NEW YORK, NY: Court Dismisses Vazquez's Claims Against City & Roth
NORTHSTAR ELECTRICAL: Bonilla Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PNC BANK: Reynoso Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
REALPAGE INC: Johnson Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
RESTONIC SALES: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

RESTORATION HARDWARE: Ahnfeldt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ROTARY INTERNATIONAL: Renfro Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
RUSHMORE LOAN: Fattorusso Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
SHARON & CRESCENT: Pais Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
SOMNIA: Chabak Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of Information

SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Chen Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
STEWARD HEALTH: Wegerbauer Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
STUCKEYS CORPORATION: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUPER CLEAN: Pineda Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SUPERIOR STAFFING: Rivas FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

SYNGENTA CROP: DeLine Sues Over Sherman Act Violations
TIGER SPORTS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TORRID HOLDINGS INC: Continues to Defend Waswick Class Suit
TOURNEAU LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRULIEVE INC: O'Neal Files Suit in N.D. Florida

ULTA SALON: Brito Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: MultiPlan Compelled to Show Documents in LD Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Grants Smith Nationwide Class Certification
UNITED STATES: Court Grants Wolfing Leave to File Amended Complaint
VIVENDI TICKETING: Carter Files Suit in C.D. California

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Bansal Suit Removed to S.D. California
WALMART INC: Sepulveda Suit Removed to C.D. California
WALMART INC: Stockwell Files Suit in S.D. Illinois
WEB TO DOOR CORP: Arocha Sues Over FCRA Violation
YAZAM INC: Woodford Files Suit in D. Columbia

ZUORA INC: Continues to Defend Two Putative Securities Class Suits
ZUORA INC: Stockholder Suit in Northern California Stayed
ZUORA INC: Trial in Securities Suit to Start May 2023
ZUORA INC: Two Stockholder Derivative Suits Stayed

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Kristosik Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Kristosik and Lisa Kristosik, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No.
2:22-cv-03763-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 31, 2022), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff Richard Kristosik regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career and was diagnosed with prostate cancer
and/or other medical conditions related as a result of exposure to
the Defendants' AFFF products.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr.
          John E. Keefe, Jr, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
          125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Phone: 732-855-6060
          Facsimile: 732-726-4860

3M COMPANY: Manning Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Manning and Mary Manning, his wife,, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No.
2:22-cv-03765-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 31, 2022), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff Daniel Manning regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career and was diagnosed with leukemia and/or
other medical
conditions as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr.
          John E. Keefe, Jr, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
          125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Phone: 732-855-6060
          Facsimile: 732-726-4860


3M COMPANY: Morris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Morris, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:22-cv-03790-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 1,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: Shartzer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Shartzer, and Dale Shartzer by the Proposed Administrator
and Next-of-Kin, Melissa Shartzer, and other similarly situated v.
3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:22-cv-03745-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff Melissa Shartzer is an adult resident of the State of
California and is the proposed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Dale
Shartzer. Dale Shartzer ("Decedent") regularly used, and was
thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter and, prior to death, was diagnosed with prostate cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

A-ALERT SECURITY: Salgado Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A-Alert Security
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Stephanie Salgado,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
A-Alert Security Services, Inc., Rickey Martinez, Case No.
1:22-cv-06189 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 7, 2022).

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

A-Alert Security Services, Inc. home and commercial security
services and products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Edward Meyer, Jr., Esq.
          Blake William Buether, Esq.
          FUKSA KHORSHID LLC
          200 W. Superior, Suite 410
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 266-2221
          Fax: (312) 266-2224
          Email: william@fklawfirm.com
                 blake@fklawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephanie Melissa Gomberg Dinkel, Esq.
          KOEHLER DINKEL LLC
          900 Frontage. Suite 300
          Woodridge, IL 60517
          Phone: (630) 505-9939
          Email: sdinkel@kdllclaw.com


AEROVIRONMENT INC: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
AeroVironment Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a labor class suit in California
Superior Court.

On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint
against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles,
California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor
Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime and other
recordkeeping matters.

The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged
unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees in
unspecified amounts.

The Company filed itsr answer on December 16, 2021.

Discovery in this lawsuit has begun and is ongoing.

The Company will continue to mount a vigorous defense.

Aerovironment, Inc. designs, develops, produces, delivers and
supports a technologically-advanced portfolio of intelligent,
multi-domain robotic systems and related services based in
Virginia.


AGS INC: Bids to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE AGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
2:20-CV-1209 JCM (NJK) (D. Nev.), Judge James C. Mahan of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada:

   a. grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motions
      to dismiss; and

   b. grants the Plaintiff class leave to file an amended
      complaint.

The lawsuit is a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging various
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities Act of 1933 against 28 Defendants. Presently before the
court are three motions to dismiss the second amended complaint
filed by three separate groups of Defendants. The Plaintiff class,
through Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System, filed responses. The groups of Defendants replied.

The matter arises from allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations
regarding the Defendants' statements regarding PlayAGS, Inc.'s
economic performance. The Plaintiff class contends these statements
were part of a fraudulent scheme to inflate the price of PlayAGS's
initial public offering ("IPO") and subsequent secondary public
offerings ("SPOs").

Specifically, the alleged harm resulted from statements
artificially inflating the share price in advance of two SPOs: one
in August 2018 (the "August 2018 SPO") and another in March 2019
(the "March 2019 SPO"). The Plaintiff class consists of any person
or entity who purchased PlayAGS stock from Jan. 26, 2018, to March
4, 2020. During the class period, PlayAGS stock fell from a high of
$32.04 per share in 2018 to a low of $6.65 per share in 2020. The
Defendants contend this price decrease was due to unforeseen
challenges in the market while the Plaintiff class asserts it was a
result of the falsity of the Defendants' statements coming to
light.

Samples of allegations include: PlayAGS and/or other defendants
arbitrarily and fraudulently inflating its sales metrics and growth
projections by a factor of four when reporting to Wall Street;
reporting sales in quarters in which they did not occur; and
failing to disclose costs and risks of an acquisition. In sum, the
Plaintiff class asserts unlawful statements concerning unsupported
and unstainable growth measures, sales manipulation, and
problematic acquisition led to inflated IPO and SPO prices and
ultimately the downfall of the stock price harming the Plaintiff
class.

The Plaintiff class asserts Defendants David Lopez and Kimo Akiona
("Executive Defendants"), and PlayAGS violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder ("claim 1").
Further, the Plaintiff class asserts Defendants Apollo Global
Management, LLC; Apollo Gaming Holdings, LP; Apollo Investment
Fund, LP; and AP Gaming VoteCo, LLC ("Apollo Defendants"), and the
Executive Defendants, violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
("claim 2").

Regarding the Securities Act, the class avers Section 11 was
violated by the Underwriter Defendants; PlayAGS; the Executive
Defendants; and David Sambur, Daniel Cohen, Eric Press, Yvette
Landau, Adam Chibib, and Geoff Freeman ("Director Defendants")
(together with the Executive Defendants, the "Individual
Defendants") ("claim 3"). The Plaintiff further contends Section
12(a)(2) was violated by all Defendants ("claim 4"), and Section 15
was violated by the individual defendants and Apollo Defendants
("claim 5").

The Underwriter Defendants move to dismiss the second amended
complaint, joined by the AGS Defendants and the Apollo Defendants.
The AGS Defendants also move to dismiss the second amended
complaint, joined by the Underwriter Defendants and the Apollo
Defendants. The Apollo Defendants also move to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

The Underwriter Defendants move to dismiss claim 3: violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act. They additionally move to dismiss
the Plaintiff class' claim 4: violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act.

Judge Mahan grants the Underwriter Defendants' motion to dismiss --
to which the AGS Defendants and the Apollo Defendants have joined
-- as to all Defendants concerning the March 2019 SPO because the
Lead Plaintiff does not have statutory standing. He finds that the
Lead Plaintiff's last purchase of AGS shares was seven months prior
to the March 2019 SPO, and the complaint contains no allegations
tying any of its shares to the March SPO. Thus, it does not have
statutory standing to bring claims of violations of Section 11 or
Section 12 of the Securities Act concerning the March 2019 SPO.

Judge Mahan also grants the Underwriter Defendants' motion to
dismiss -- to which the AGS Defendants and the Apollo Defendants
have joined -- as to the Underwriter Defendants as the allegations
are insufficient to establish them as statutory sellers. Each
allegation concerning the Underwriter Defendants "selling" or
"offering" AGS shares is vague and conclusory. The complaint also
falls short of establishing the Underwriter Defendants as statutory
sellers.

The AGS Defendants seek to dismiss the entire complaint. The
Plaintiff class asserts claims 1 and 4 against the AGS Defendants,
claim 2 against the Executive Defendants, and claim 3 against
PlayAGS.

As an initial matter, Judge Mahan reiterates the Lead Plaintiff
does not have standing to bring claims 3 or 4 as they pertain to
the March 2019 SPO. The allegations of CWs-1, -3, -8, -9, and -11
are insufficiently pled. Thus, allegations sourced from these CWs
do not have to be accepted by the Court as true. CWs-6 and -10 are
likewise insufficiently pled as to allegations of client
negotiations and business dealings, respectively. CWs-2, -4, -5,
-7, and -12 are sufficiently pled.

Next, because allegations fail to show the Executive Defendants did
not believe statements that turned out to be false or misleading,
and because there are no allegations to establish executive
defendants as statutory sellers, the AGS Defendants' motion as to
claims 1, 2, and 4, against them is granted.

The complaint also fails as to claims 1, 3, and 4 against PlayAGS
and the AGS Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to these
claims is granted. Judge Mahan finds that the Lead Plaintiff
contends the risks were misidentified as "potential" risks when
they had already materialized, but the complaint does not allege
sufficient factual allegations to support this assertion.

With respect to the Apollo Defendants' motion to dismiss, Judge
Mahan finds that the complaint contains no allegations of any
Apollo Defendants passing title to any member of the plaintiff
class. There are also no allegations that allege any direct
communications between the Apollo defendants and any member of the
Plaintiff class. Without more, the solicitation prong cannot be
satisfied. Thus, the complaint does not establish the Apollo
Defendants as statutory sellers. The Apollo Defendants' motion to
dismiss is thus granted with respect to claim 4.

The Apollo Defendants further move to dismiss claims 2 and 5 --
alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section
15 of the Securities Act -- on the grounds that there is no primary
liability and thus there cannot be control person liability.
Because the Apollo Defendants are not established as statutory
sellers by the complaint, there is no primary liability to
predicate claims 2 and 5. Thus, they must be dismissed with claim 3
regarding the Apollo Defendants.

Judge Mahan denies the AGS Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
scheme liability. He finds that Claim 1 is specifically entitled
Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
Promulgated Thereunder Against PlayAGS and the Executive
Defendants. No motion presently before the Court properly addresses
this claim.

Finally, the Lead Plaintiff requests leave to amend the complaint
should any claims be dismissed. Despite the complaint having been
amended twice already, Judge Mahan recognizes this is the first it
has been substantively challenged. Thus, leave to amend is
granted.

Accordingly, Judge Mahan grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss and grants the Plaintiff class leave
to file an amended complaint within 30 days of his Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 2, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2uvpkf35 from Leagle.com.


ALBERTSON'S COMPANIES: Court Dismisses All of Sapienza's Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICOLE SAPIENZA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. ALBERTSON'S COMPANIES, INC., SHAW'S
SUPERMARKETS, INC., SAFEWAY, INC., BETTER LIVING BRANDS, LLC, AND
LNK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Civil Action No. 22-10968-RGS (D. Mass.),
Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss
all counts.

Sapienza brought the action against Albertson's Companies, Inc.;
Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc.; Safeway, Inc.; Better Living Brands,
LLC; and LNK International, Inc. She seeks to hold the Defendants
liable for allegedly misrepresenting Signature Care acetaminophen
gelcap tablets as "rapid release" while advertising, marketing, and
selling the tablets.

Sapienza asserts six counts against the Defendants: violation of
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (CPA), Mass. Gen. Laws
ch. 93A (Count I);1 breach of express warranty (Count II); breach
of implied warranty of merchantability (Count III); unjust
enrichment/restitution (Count IV); negligent misrepresentation
(Count V); and fraud (Count VI).

Sapienza, a citizen and domiciliary of Massachusetts, brought the
class action complaint on behalf of herself and a putative
nationwide class of individuals who purchased Signature Care-brand
over-the-counter acetaminophen gelcap products labeled "rapid
release" (Signature Care gelcaps) during the statutes of
limitations period for each claim. The Defendants variously
produce, manufacture, distribute, and sell the Signature Care
gelcaps at issue.

Sapienza claims that, although the Signature Care gelcaps are
labeled "rapid release," independent testing demonstrates that the
products dissolve more slowly than Signature Care non-"rapid
release" acetaminophen products, which are lower in price. She
argues that she and the members of the putative class would not
have purchased the Signature Care gelcaps at a premium had they not
been deceived by the "rapid release" language.

The Defendants move to dismiss Sapienza's Complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). They contend that Sapienza's claims
cannot proceed because they are preempted by the National
Uniformity for Nonprescription Drugs provision of the Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. Section 379r.

Judge Stearns agrees. He says the testing on which Sapienza rests
her claims confirms that the Signature Care gelcaps meet the USP
and Immediate Release Guidance dissolution standards. Because the
products comply with the USP and the Immediate Release Guidance
standards, Sapienza's claims are preempted insofar that they
attempt to augment the existing approved labeling requirement.

Moreover, Judge Stearns states that the phrase at issue, "rapid
release," closely resembles the FDA's standards "immediate release"
and "rapidly dissolving" -- both of which the Signature Care
gelcaps meet. These terms are significantly similar, refer to
acetaminophen dissolution rates, and are covered under existing FDA
guidance. To find otherwise would require the FDA to list phrases
in every possible permutation of similar words to have preemptive
effect. Yet limiting the FDCA's preemptive power in such a way
would undermine the latitude Congress gives agencies to have
authority over matters in which they have subject matter expertise
-- the FDA's responsibility to evaluate and regulate drugs.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is
granted. The Clerk will enter judgment for the Defendants and close
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 2, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/j3tvfjwm from Leagle.com.


AUDIOPHILE MUSIC: Allen Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mark Allen, an individual; and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Audiophile Music
Direct doing business as: Music Direct, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab,
Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV31121 was
removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 7, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00138-LGW-BWC to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Audiophile Music Direct -- https://www.musicdirect.com/ -- is the
world's largest online retailer of high-end audio, audiophile
music, and accessories specializing in vinyl records and
turntables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan B. Sokol, Esq.
          Vera Serova, Esq.
          GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN AND MACHTINGER LLP
          2049 Century Park East Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 553-3610
          Fax: (310) 553-0687
          Email: jsokol@ggfirm.com
                 vserova@greenbergglusker.com

               - and -

          Robert W. Brownlie, Esq.
          BROWNLIE HANSEN LLP
          10920 Via Frontera Suite 550
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Phone: (858) 357-8001
          Email: robert.brownlie@brownliehansen.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexandra Julia Sloan Kelly, Esq.
          BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 284-3880
          Fax: (310) 284-3894
          Email: alexandra.kelly@btlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian Nguyen, Esq.
          NOVIAN AND NOVIAN LLP
          1801 Century Park East Suite 1201
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 553-1222
          Fax: (310) 553-0222
          Email: brian.nguyen@btlaw.com


AVIATOR GEAR INC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aviator Gear, Inc.
The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Aviator Gear, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-10366 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2022).

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

Aviator Gear -- https://www.aviatorgear.com/ -- is an online source
for custom military aviation gear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


BERING HOME CENTER: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bering Home Center,
Inc. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Bering Home Center,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10365-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2022).

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

Bering Home Center, Inc. -- https://www.berings.com/ -- retails
hardware and home appliances. The Company offers housekeeping and
baby products, pets toys, kitchen appliances, furnitures,
tabletops, and outdoor and leisures.[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


BLUEMERCURY INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluemercury, Inc. The
case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bluemercury, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07427 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2022).

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

Bluemercury -- https://bluemercury.com/ -- is a leading luxury
beauty retailer offering the best cosmetics, skin care, makeup,
perfume, hair, and bath and body.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BP EXPLORATION: Smith's Bid to Disqualify Judge Vitter Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEROME CLYDE SMITH v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL., SECTION: D(1), Civil Action No. 22-842-WBV-JVM (E.D.
La.), Judge Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana denies the Plaintiff's Motion to
Disqualify and/or Recuse District Court Judge Wendy Vitter.

The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf
Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, while presiding over the multidistrict
litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, U.S.
District Judge Carl J. Barbier approved the Deepwater Horizon
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement ("MSA"). The MSA
includes a Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") that permits certain
class members to sue BP for Later-Manifested Physical Conditions
("LMPCs").

Certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted
out of or were excluded from the MSA. Judge Barbier previously
described the BELO and B3 cases in similar terms, explaining that,
both allege personal injuries or wrongful death due to exposure to
oil or other chemicals used during the oil spill response, and
that, both BELO plaintiffs and B3 plaintiffs must prove that the
legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or
other chemicals used during the response.

In April 2021, Judge Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL, and
those cases were reallotted among the judges of the Court. Although
not addressed by either party in their briefs or prior pleadings,
it appears that Smith opted out of the MSA and filed an individual
BELO Complaint on March 30, 2022. Thus, Smith is a B3 plaintiff.

On Sept. 28, 2022, the Court granted BP's Daubert motions to
exclude the Plaintiffs' proffered general causation expert, Dr.
Jerald Cook, in 15 B3 cases. Because those Plaintiffs then lacked
the requisite expert testimony, the Court granted BP's motions for
summary judgment and dismissed those cases with prejudice. Less
than one month later, Smith filed the instant Motion to Disqualify
Judge Vitter.

In the instant Motion, Smith asserts that Judge Vitter should be
disqualified under 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a) because her spouse's
role as a member of Congress and subsequent lobbying activities
give rise to an appearance of impropriety in favor of the oil and
gas industry. He also claims that recusal is warranted under 28
U.S.C. Section 455(b)(5) because Judge Vitter and her spouse have a
financial interest that may be substantially affected by the
outcome of the Deepwater Horizon litigation. While not a model of
clarity, Smith appears to argue that disqualification is warranted
under 28 U.S.C. Section 455(b)(5) because Judge Vitter's spouse
lobbies on behalf of other petrochemical companies and, thus, there
is substantial support that she and her spouse have a significant
financial interest in the petrochemical industry.

BP opposes the Motion, asserting that there is no legal basis for
disqualification because no court has ever suggested that a federal
judge must recuse herself from cases involving an entire industry
based on a claim that her spouse, while previously a member of
Congress and several years before the judge was appointed, received
campaign donations from companies engaged in that industry and took
pro-industry positions on legislation. It also argues that the
Motion is untimely because the purported grounds for
disqualification -- however specious -- have been publicly
available for many years.

In response, Smith disputes BP's characterization of his Motion to
Disqualify, including the timeliness of the motion and his motive
for seeking disqualification.

Judge Vitter concludes that as a judge, she has an affirmative duty
not to disqualify herself unnecessarily. Because Smith raises no
compelling or persuasive grounds for disqualification, and,
importantly, because she can perform her duties in the matter
fairly, impartially, and diligently -- obligations she takes
seriously -- it is unnecessary and, indeed, would be improper for
the undersigned to disqualify herself.

Accordingly, for the reasons she set forth, Judge Vitter denies
Smith's Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 2, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/h3jv7x47 from Leagle.com.


BRENT WILLIS: Clifton Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Clifton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Brent Willis, Fred Cooper, Tim Haas, Reginald Kapteyn,
Alicia Syrett, Gregory Gould, Chuck Ence, Carl Aure, Kevin Manion,
Ed Brennan, Amy Kuzdowicz, Greg Fea, and Craig Thibodeau, Case No.
1:22-cv-03161-SKC (D. Colo., Dec. 7, 2022), is brought on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased the securities of NewAge for the time period January 18,
2018 through and including October 18, 2022 (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Relevant non-party party NewAge purports to produce and sell
various beverages and other health products. NewAge wholly owns
subsidiaries that sell products under a variety of brand names.
During the Class Period, NewAge's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO")
and various Chief Financial Officer's ("CFO") misrepresented to
investors the Company's business relationships, product
development, business prospects, adequacy of internal controls, and
concealed an internal investigation and subsequent disclosure to
the Department of Justice and the SEC. As a result of this adverse
information, the Plaintiffs and the class were damaged.

The Class Period begins on January 18, 2018, when Defendants issued
a false and misleading press release announcing that NewAge had a
"new distribution agreement" with the U.S. military which was a
"new U.S. military initiative in partnership with NewAge". Under
this agreement, 21 NewAge "SKUs" ("stock keeping unit," or distinct
item for sale) across five product lines were purportedly "shipping
out now and throughout the 1st quarter to all commissary locations
worldwide," with the scope of the distribution agreement including
240 military
commissaries and 3,100 exchanges in over 30 countries. The Company
also claimed that "the new distribution agreement is expected to
have a material impact on the financial results of NewAge."

During NewAge's May 15, 2018 earnings call, Defendant Willis made a
statement which falsely referenced NewAge having "picked up the
military business worldwide." In addition, on NewAge's August 14,
2018 earnings call, Defendant Willis false stated that NewAge was
selling "21 core SKUs" of its brands in the "military channel" that
was "as big as Walmart in total sales throughput."

The statements in the January 18, 2018 press release and the May 15
and August 14, 2018 earnings calls were false and misleading when
made because, as Defendant Willis was aware or was reckless in not
being aware of at the time: NewAge never entered into a
"distribution agreement" or "initiative in partnership" with the
military and never had plans to sell its products at all
commissaries and exchanges around the world; NewAge did not have
adequate inventory of its products to fulfill this reported
agreement; and the only new distribution during this period was to
sell NewAge products at two individual stores in Virginia and
Florida for a trial period of four weeks. The false and misleading
statements about NewAge's relationship with the U.S. military were
material and caused NewAge's share price to spike. On January 19,
2018, the trading day following the January 18, 2018 press release
describing the purported agreement with the military, NewAge's
stock price closed 21% higher than the previous day.

The statements were materially false and misleading because
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
the Company and Defendants had no relationship with the military or
FamilyMart; the Company and Defendants overstated the business
agreements that they did have; the Company and Defendants never
produced or sold a proprietary CBD beverage; the Company lacked
adequate internal controls; as a result the Company had a
heightened risk of regularly scrutiny and ultimately subject to an
SEC investigation and action; and as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased NewAge securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

Brent Willis served as NewAge's CEO and a Director from March 24,
2016 through January 10, 2022.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Fax: (212) 202-3827

BUILD-A-BEAR: TCPA Suit Tentative Settlement for Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Build-a-Bear Workshop Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2022, that the
tentative settlement with the Company, Plaintiff and an insurance
carrier is subject for court’s approval.

In  August 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. The plaintiff amended the complaint
during the Company's first quarter of fiscal 2022.

As amended, the complaint asserts claims under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") alleging that the Company
continued to send marketing text messages to mobile phone numbers
after those numbers had allegedly opted-out of receiving them.

Statutory damages under the TCPA are assessed at up to $500 per
text message, and up to $1,500 per text message if the violation
was knowing or willful.

The Company has reached a tentative settlement with the Plaintiff
and an insurance carrier which, if approved by the Court, is not
expected to result in a significant expense for the Company.

Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. is Missouri-based experiential
specialty retailer where children and their families could create
their own stuffed animals.


CITY OF SYRACUSE: Hanks Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON HANKS is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' motions to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Brandon
Hanks, Plaintiff, v. City of Syracuse, et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-00921, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of New York.

The Plaintiff filed this complaint against the Defendants for
alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
including racial harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and
violation of his right to contract.

The Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case for failure to
state a claim, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Gary L. Sharpe on Sept. 30, 2022.

The Court determined that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
and dismissed the case.

The appellate case is captioned Hanks v. City of Syracuse, Case No.
22-2819, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on October 26, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BRANDON HANKS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Charles Bonner, Esq.
            LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER
            475 Gate Five Road
            Sausalito, CA 94965
            Telephone: (415) 331-3070

Defendants-Appellees CITY OF SYRACUSE, et al. are represented by:

            Brian J. Butler, Esq.
            BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
            1 Lincoln Center
            110 West Fayette Street
            Syracuse, NY 13202
            Telephone: (315) 218-8000

                    - and -

            Mary L. D'Agostino, Esq.
            John G. Powers, Esq.
            HANCOCK ESTABROOK LLP
            1800 AXA Tower I, 100 Madison Street
            Syracuse, NY 13202
            Telephone: (315) 565-4550
                       (315) 565-4547

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: US Sugar's Judgment on Pleadings Bid Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, United States Sugar Corporation, Plaintiff v. Commerce
and Industry Insurance Company, Defendant, Civil Action No.
22-21737-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida grants in
part the Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The matter is a coverage dispute between US Sugar and its
then-general commercial liability insurer, C&I. The dispute arose
over US Sugar's defense of a putative class-action lawsuit relating
to US Sugar's practice of pre-harvest sugarcane burning (the
"Underlying Lawsuit"). US Sugar pleads a single count for breach of
contract against C&I, alleging that C&I has breached the terms of
the Umbrella Prime Commercial Umbrella Liability Policy that US
Sugar held with C&I by failing to pay US Sugar's defense expenses
after those expenses exceeded the Policy's "Self-Insured Retention"
limit of $1 million.

That Self-Insured Retention limit -- a common feature of commercial
liability policies -- requires US Sugar to bear responsibility for
the initial costs of liability under the Policy, much like a car
insurance or health insurance plan's deductible. Although US Sugar
ultimately prevailed in the Underlying Lawsuit, it alleges that it
incurred "the burden of seven-figure attorneys' fees and costs"
after C&I denied coverage under the Policy and that those costs
should count against the Policy's Self-Insured Retention limit.

The parties now dispute the application of the terms of the Policy,
specifically the Self-Insured Retention limit, to US Sugar's
incurred attorneys' fees and costs.

US Sugar argues that Endorsement 26 to the Policy, which modifies
the Policy's basic terms regarding self-insured retention limits,
controls the Policy's other terms and establishes that "Defense
Expenses" erode the Policy's Self-Insured Retention limit for
general liability of $1 million. Therefore, US Sugar argues, the
Policy requires that C&I cover any of US Sugar's expenses above and
beyond the $1,000,000 retention incurred in defending the
Underlying Lawsuit.

C&I, on the other hand, argues that Endorsement 23, which alters
the Policy's standard language disclaiming coverage for
pollution-related harms, controls this dispute. And under the terms
of Endorsement 23, Defense Expenses do not erode the Self-Insured
Retention limit. Rather, Endorsement 23 provides that C&I is
responsible only to indemnify US Sugar for actual liability
expenses in excess of the Self-Insured Retention limit. C&I also
argues that the motion for judgment on the pleadings is
procedurally improper, which the Court will address separately.

Neither party disputes that the damages sought in the Underlying
Lawsuit fit within the Policy's "Pollution" exception to general
liability. Nor does either party dispute, as a conceptual matter,
that US Sugar's attorneys' fees and defenses incurred defending the
Underlying Lawsuit qualify as "Defense Expenses" under the Policy.
C&I disputes whether US Sugar's Defense Expenses exceeded the $1
mollion Self-Insured Retention limit, however.

Central to the resolution of the motion are the terms of the Policy
itself. US Sugar attaches the Policy in its entirety to the
complaint, and C&I does not challenge the Policy's authenticity.
Comprising 91 pages, including declarations, terms, schedules, and
thirty-three separate endorsements modifying those declarations,
terms, and schedules, the Policy is hardly a model of simplicity.

Nevertheless, Judge Scola focuses on the portions of the Policy
that the parties themselves identify as controlling: Item 5 of the
Declarations (the original Self-Insured Retention Limit, at page 5
of the Policy)2; Section I of the Terms (the "Insuring Agreement,"
at page 6); Subsection M of Section IV of the Terms (the "Payment
of Loss" provision, at pages 9-10) Subsection Q of Section V of the
Terms (the "Pollution Exclusion," at pages 15-16); Subsection P of
Section VII of the Terms (the definition of a "Loss," at page 25);
Endorsement 23, which modifies Section V(Q), the Pollution
Exclusion (at pages 72-74); and Endorsement 26, which modifies Item
5 of the Declarations, the original Self-Insured Retention Limit,
among other provisions (at pages 78-82). He turns to the parties'
dispute regarding the meaning and application of the Self-Insured
Retention limit to US Sugar's attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
defending the Underlying Lawsuit.

Judge Scola must address two issues.

First, can it determine the meaning and application of the Policy's
terms on a motion for judgment on the pleadings? Judge Scola finds
that yes, the Court it can determine the meaning of the Policy's
terms as a matter of law -- in other words, the motion for judgment
on the pleadings is procedurally proper. The Court cannot, however,
make any determinations regarding the parties' dispute over the
actual amount of US Sugar's attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
defending the Underlying Suit at this stage.

Second, are the Policy's terms clear, or are they ambiguous? And,
if they are clear, which party's interpretation is correct? Judge
Scola finds that the Policy -- although hardly a model of drafting
-- is sufficiently clear that the Court can interpret it, and that
US Sugar's interpretation is the correct one. US Sugar's Defense
Expenses incurred in the Underlying Lawsuit erode the Self-Insured
Retention limit. Alternatively, if the Policy is ambiguous, then US
Sugar's interpretation is at least reasonable. Therefore, Florida
law compels the same outcome: C&I had a duty to defend US Sugar in
the Underlying Lawsuit once US Sugar's Defenses Expenses exceeded
the Self-Insured Retention limit.

For these reasons, Judge Scola grants in part US Sugar's motion for
judgment on the pleadings and finds that the Policy's Self-Insured
Retention limit for general liability -- including for liability
that falls within Endorsement 23's terms -- is eroded by Defense
Expenses.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 2, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5fexmxs9 from Leagle.com.


CVS PHARMACY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Daichendt BIPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENISE DAICHENDT and ADA "JUNE" ODELL, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CVS
PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22 CV 3318 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants CVS' motion to
dismiss the class action complaint for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiffs Daichendt and Odell bring the putative class action
complaint, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, against the Defendant. They allege various
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA"), 740 ILCS 14/1, under sections 15(a)2012(c).

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant takes passport and ID
photos using the KODAK Biometric ID Photo System, which
automatically verifies that the photos meet all government
requirements. They allege that KODAK advertises the KODAK Biometric
ID Photo System as a means to "profit from passport photos" because
photos for official documents like passports must meet certain
requirements, including limitations on photo size, image size
within the frame, and facial expression. The photo system is useful
because it confirms that the photos meet the required criteria
through an application called "KODAK Moments."

The Plaintiffs allege that KODAK Moments works by scanning
consumers' facial geometry, and that a CVS employee first takes the
photo with a digital camera and then uses the photo system to scan
the digital image for biometric identifiers. After taking the
photo, consumers receive a printout with their photo and another
printout with a verification certificate, the "Certificate of
Biometric Passport Photos."

The Plaintiffs allege that the verification certificate confirms
that a scan of facial geometry was performed to confirm that the
photos meet the following criteria: (a) the image is the correct
size; (b) proper width/height ratio; (c) correct head size; (d)
correct position of the head in the photo; (e) the image is
sufficiently bright; (f) the image has a sufficient color balance;
(g) eyes are open; (h) eyes are looking straight ahead; (i) mouth
is closed and not smiling; (j) eye glasses are not present or there
is no glare; and (k) proper facial position.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's use of the photo system
at CVS stores violates BIPA. According to them, CVS is a private
entity that collects and stores consumers' biometric identifiers
and biometric information without first obtaining written consent
or providing the same consumers with data retention and destruction
policies. They also allege that CVS unlawfully profits from the
sale or commercial use of consumers' biometrics. The case was
originally filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, and
was removed to this court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441.

The Defendant disputes all claims and brings the instant motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). CVS
argues that the Plaintiffs fail to plead sufficient factual
allegations to support their claims. First, the Defendant argues
that the Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege that defendant
gained "control" over their biometric data pursuant to Section
15(b) and provide only conclusory allegations regarding the
verification certificate. Next, it argues that the Plaintiffs fail
to sufficiently allege both "possession" and failure to comply
under Section 15(a). Last, it argues that the Plaintiffs fail to
sufficiently allege both "possession" and "otherwise profit" under
Section 15(c).

First, Judge Gettleman evaluates the Plaintiffs' claims under
Section 15(a). The Defendant starts by arguing that the Court
should dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 15(a) because
they fail to sufficiently allege thatit "possessed" their data.
Judge Gettleman opines that the Plaintiffs have not alleged that
the Defendant failed to comply with its retention and destruction
policy and instead complain that it failed to "maintain" a
retention policy to begin with. He remands the Plaintiffs' claims
to the extent that they allege a violation of Section 15(a) without
alleging a failure to comply with Defendant's (allegedly
nonexistent) retention and destruction policy.

Next, Judge Gettleman considers the Defendant's claims under
Section 15(c), which he also remands to state court. The Defendant
argues that the court should dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under
Section 15(c) because they fail to sufficiently allege that the
Defendant gained "possession" of their biometric data, and that it
used their biometric data to "otherwise profit." Judge Gettleman
cannot consider either argument because he finds that the
Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their Section 15(c) claim in
federal court. The Plaintiffs do not allege that the Defendant
profited from their individual biometric data, or from the putative
class's data.

Thus, Judge Gettleman is left with the Plaintiffs' claims under
Section 15(b). According to Defendant, the Court should dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims under Section 15(b) because the Plaintiffs do
not meet their factual pleading burden, and the verification
certificate does not change this conclusion. It concludes that the
Plaintiffs' allegations do not suggest that it gained control of
their biometric data. Judge Gettleman opines that the Plaintiffs
have failed to plead the most foundational aspect of a BIPA claim.
Consequently, he grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims under Section 15(b).

For the reasons he stated, Judge Gettleman grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss. He dismisses the Plaintiffs' claim under Section
15(b) and remands the Plaintiffs' claims under Sections 15(a) and
(c) without ruling on the merits. The Clerk is directed to remand
the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, forthwith.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 2, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5fwc2zww from
Leagle.com.


DELL TECHNOLOGIES: VMware Class Suit Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2022, that the Court
approved the settlement in VMware class suit on October 4, 2022.

Two purported stockholders brought putative class action complaints
arising out of VMware, Inc.'s acquisition of Pivotal Software, Inc.
("Pivotal") on December 30, 2019.

The two actions were consolidated in the Delaware Chancery Court
into In re: Pivotal Software, Inc. Stockholders Litigation (Civil
Action No. 2020-0440-KSJM).

The complaint names as defendants the Company, VMware, Inc.,
Michael S. Dell, and certain officers of Pivotal.

The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the former holders of Pivotal Class A Common
Stock in connection with VMware, Inc.'s acquisition of Pivotal by
allegedly causing Pivotal to enter into a transaction that favored
the interests of Pivotal's controlling stockholders at the expense
of such former stockholders.

The parties reached a settlement on June 2, 2022, subject to court
approval.

On October 4, 2022, the court entered a final order and judgment
approving the settlement.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. provides computer products. The Company
offers laptops, desktops, tablets, workstations, servers, monitors,
printers, gateways, software, storage, and networking products.
[BN]


DOCUSIGN INC: Bid to Dismiss Weston Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------
Docusign Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 8, 2022, that the Company's amended
complaint dismissal bid for Weston securities class suit is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On February 8, 2022, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
captioned Weston v. DocuSign, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00824,
naming DocuSign and certain of the Company's current and former
officers as defendants.

An amended complaint was filed on July 8, 2022. As amended, the
suit purports to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements
about the Company's business and prospects during the course of the
COVID-19 pandemic.

As amended, the suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's securities between June 4, 2020 and June 9, 2022.


The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 16,
2022.

DocuSign, Inc. is a provider of eSignature services, with its
principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California.
[BN]


DOCUSIGN INC: Fox Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Docusign Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 8, 2022, that the Fox shareholder
derivative suit is stayed in the Northern District of California on
December 2, 2022.

A putative shareholder derivative case had been filed containing
allegations based on or similar to those in the securities class
action. The case was filed on September 20, 2022 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned
Fox v. Springer, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-05343.

The case is allegedly brought on the Company's behalf. The suits
name the Company as a nominal defendant and, depending on the
particular case, the members of its board of directors or, in
certain instances, current or former officers, as defendants. While
the complaints vary, they are based largely on the same underlying
allegations as the securities class action suit, as well as, in
certain instances, alleged insider trading. The lawsuit purports to
assert claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting such breach, corporate waste, unjust
enrichment, and under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks to recover unspecified
damages and other relief on the Company’s behalf.

The Fox case in the Northern District of California  was related to
the other derivative suits and assigned to the same judge, and was
similarly stayed by order of the court on December 2, 2022.

DocuSign, Inc. is a provider of eSignature services, with its
principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California.
[BN]


DOCUSIGN INC: Lapin & Votto Shareholder Derivative Suits Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Docusign Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 8, 2022, that the Court stayed the
Lapin and Votto shareholder derivative suits in the Northern
District of California.

Two putative shareholder derivative cases have been filed
containing allegations based on or similar to those in the
securities class action. The cases were filed on May 17, 2022, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned
captioned Lapin v. Springer, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02980; on May
20, 2022 and in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, captioned Votto v. Springer, et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-02987.

Each case is allegedly brought on the Company's behalf. The suits
name the Company as a nominal defendant and, depending on the
particular case, the members of its board of directors or, in
certain instances, current or former officers, as defendants. While
the complaints vary, they are based largely on the same underlying
allegations as the securities class action suit, as well as, in
certain instances, alleged insider trading. Collectively, these
lawsuits purport to assert claims for, among other things, breach
of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting such breach, corporate
waste, unjust enrichment, and under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints seek to recover
unspecified damages and other relief on the Company's behalf.

By court order dated July 19, 2022, the two cases in the Northern
District of California (Lapin and Votto) have been consolidated and
stayed in light of the securities class action and no response to
the complaints in the action will be due unless and until the stay
is lifted.

DocuSign, Inc. is a provider of eSignature services, with its
principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California.
[BN]


DOCUSIGN INC: Potteti Securities Class Suit Stayed in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Docusign Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 8, 2022, that the Pottetti
shareholder derivative suit was stayed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery on September 30, 2022.

A putative shareholder derivative case had been filed containing
allegations based on or similar to those in the securities class
action. The case was filed on May 17, 2022, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Potteti v. Springer,
et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00652; on May 19, 2022 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The case is allegedly brought on the Company's behalf. The suit
names the Company as a nominal defendant and, depending on the
particular case, the members of its board of directors or, in
certain instances, current or former officers, as defendants. While
the complaints vary, they are based largely on the same underlying
allegations as the securities class action suit, as well as, in
certain instances, alleged insider trading. The lawsuit purports to
assert claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting such breach, corporate waste, unjust
enrichment, and under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks to recover unspecified
damages and other relief on the Company's behalf.

The Delaware suit (Potteti) was voluntarily dismissed on September
1, 2022, and then re-filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on
September 22, 2022, under the caption Pottetti v. Springer, et al.,
Case No. C.A. 2022-0852-PAF.

The Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order on September 30,
2022 staying the action in light of the securities class action and
no response to the complaint will be due unless and until the stay
is lifted.

DocuSign, Inc. is a provider of eSignature services, with its
principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California.
[BN]

DOMO INC: Continues to Defend Volonte Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Domo Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 9, 2022, that the Company continues
to defend the Volonte securities class suit .

In November 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned
Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 19-04-01778, was filed by a
stockholder of the Company in the Fourth Judicial District Court
for the County of Utah in the State of Utah against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors,
and the underwriters of the Company's June 2018 initial public
offering alleging violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's initial
public offering and seeking unspecified damages.

On August 19, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Volonte complaint.

On April 13, 2021, the court granted the motion and dismissed the
complaint.

On April 25, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend or alter
judgment or for reconsideration.

On June 2, 2021, the court denied the plaintiff's motion.

On June 14, 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

On October 14, 2021, the plaintiff/appellant filed his principal
brief in the Utah Court of Appeals (Appellate Case No.
20210399-CA).

The appeal was fully briefed as of January 20, 2022, and the court
heard oral argument from the parties on May 12, 2022.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.

Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States.
Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the
frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an
organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights,
and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company
was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name
to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and
is headquartered in American Fork, Utah.


ENBRIDGE US: Can Compel Arbitration in Whitaker FLSA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES WHITAKER, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. ENBRIDGE (U.S.) INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. H-22-2354 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Sim Lake
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay him overtime. The
Defendant is a company that transports oil and gas interstate via
pipelines. The Plaintiff works as a pipeline inspector for the
Defendant. He signed a Mutual Arbitration and Class Action Waiver
Agreement as part of his work.

The Plaintiff works in the Defendant's integrity and anomaly
section. He is primarily responsible for inspecting pipeline
construction and repairs to ensure the application of coating meets
company, industry, and government requirements. His job duties also
include inspecting the clearing of right of way, trenching, and
backfilling, to ensure the tasks are performed safely and
correctly. He states that if he does not perform his job correctly,
the Defendant's pipelines could rupture or explode, causing serious
personal, environmental, and financial harm. He states that the
pipelines cannot safely or legally operate without such inspection
services.

The Plaintiff filed the action on July 14, 2022, asserting FLSA
violations and seeking unpaid overtime. The Defendant filed its
Motion to Compel Arbitration on Sept. 20, 2022. The Plaintiff filed
his Response on Oct. 18, 2022.

The Plaintiff does not dispute that he signed the Arbitration
Agreement. Nor does he dispute that the Arbitration Agreement, if
enforceable, applies to his claim. Instead, the Plaintiff argues
that he belongs to a class of workers engaged in interstate
commerce -- pipeline inspectors -- and that the Arbitration
Agreement is therefore unenforceable under the  Federal Arbitration
Act ("FAA")'s Section 1 exception. He offers several arguments for
reading Section 1 to include pipeline inspectors, based on (1) the
holding of Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 142 S.Ct. 1783, 1788
(2022), (2) statutory context, (3) "historical context," and (4)
"statutory construction."

The Defendant argues that pipeline inspectors are not engaged in
interstate commerce within the meaning of Section 1, emphasizing
that pipeline inspectors do not "handle the oil and gas; or
supervise or direct the transportation of the oil and gas.

Judge Lake finds that the Plaintiff's role in the free flow of
goods across borders is not as direct as the Saxon plaintiff's
role. He is not persuaded that pipeline inspectors play a "direct
role in the free flow of goods across borders." The Plaintiff does
not also explain the scope of 'seamen' at the time of the FAA's
passage, nor does he explain how the scope of these categories
would compare to pipeline inspectors. Finally, the Federal
Employers Liability Act and FLSA cases cannot overcome the fact
that a pipeline inspector does not meet the definition of a Section
1 transportation worker stated in Circuit City and Saxon.

Having carefully considered the parties' arguments, Judge Lake
opines that the Plaintiff -- a pipeline inspector -- has only an
indirect "role in the free flow of goods across borders." The
Plaintiff, therefore, does not fall into the FAA's Section 1
exception for workers "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce."
The Arbitration Agreement is therefore enforceable under the FAA.
For these reasons, Judge Lake grants the Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration. Pending arbitration, the action is stayed. The
parties will submit a joint status report on Jan. 27, 2023, and
every 60 days thereafter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 2, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/j9xp2hf9 from
Leagle.com.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Kisciras Files FCRA Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Mark Kisciras, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-06978 (D.N.J., Dec. 2, 2022).

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

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/
-- operates as an information services company. The Company offers
credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC-NJ
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (347) 526-4093
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

FACTORY DIRECT MODELS: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Factory Direct
Models, LLC. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Factory Direct
Models, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10367-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2022).

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

Factory Direct Models, LLC -- https://www.factorydirectmodels.com/
-- was founded in 2008. The company's line of business includes
providing various business services.[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


FAY SERVICING: Rempel Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brendan Rempel, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. FAY SERVICING, LLC; and JOHN DOES
1-25, Case No. MON-L-003029-22 was removed from the Superior Court
of the Monmouth County Superior Court of New Jersey, to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Dec. 2,
2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-06960.

The Plaintiff's Complaint brings two counts against Fay. The
Plaintiff's First Count alleges a claim under the New Jersey
Declaratory Judgment Act. The Plaintiff's Second Count alleges
claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereinafter
"FDCPA"). Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Fay violated the
FDCPA "in connection with their communications to the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph N. Froehlich, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          Brookfield Place
          200 Vesey Street, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10281-2101
          Phone: 212-415-8600
          Fax: 212-303-2754
          Email: Jfroehlich@lockelord.com


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Grijalva Files FCRA Suit in D. Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Advantage
Background Services Corporation, et al. The case is styled as
Tracie Ann Grijalva, individually and on behalf of persons
similarly situated v. First Advantage Background Services
Corporation, a Foreign Corporation registered to do business in the
State of Arizona, Unknown Parties, Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-02068-MHB (D. Ariz., Dec. 7, 2022).

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

First Advantage -- https://fadv.com/ -- deliver global, mobile
background and drug screening solutions for an enhanced applicant
experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Devin Heng Fok, Esq.
          2304 Huntington Dr., Ste. 210
          San Marino, CA 91108
          Phone: (888) 651-6411
          Fax: (818) 484-2023
          Email: devin@devinfoklaw.com

               - and -

          Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
          PRICE LAW GROUP APC - TUCSON, AZ
          2290 E Speedway Blvd.
          Tucson, AZ 85719
          Phone: (818) 600-5533
          Fax: (818) 600-5533
          Email: susan@pricelawgroup.com


FIVE BELOW INC: Hicks Sues Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------
Chris Hicks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
b. FIVE BELOW, INC., Case No. 22STCV38125 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 7,
2022), is brought alleging that the Defendant is in violation of
the anti-discrimination state statutes of California, the Unruh
Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act ("CDPA"), and
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Both the CDPA, which was enacted in 1968 and the Unruh Act was
amended in 1987 to cover persons with disabilities, prohibit
discrimination on the basis of disability and require full and
equal access to services, facilities and advantages of public
accommodations. Despite an extended period of time in which to
become compliant and despite the extensive publicity, the CDPA and
Unruh Act have received over the years, the Defendant continues to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from equal access to, and use of their stores.

The Plaintiff is a T-7 incomplete paraplegic and requires a
wheelchair to move about. The Plaintiff has visited and patronize
Five Below stores within the State of California, and has
experienced discrimination at such stores. The Plaintiff is being
deterred from patronizing Five Below stores, but intends to return
to these stores for the dual purpose of availing himself of the
goods and services offered to the public at such stores and to
ensure that these stores seize evading their responsibilities under
state law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California, is domiciled
in Sun Valley, California, and qualifies as an individual with
abilities.

Five Below is a Pennsylvania corporation with a registered agent
for service of process.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Lyle Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fleetcor
Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Timothy Lyle, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Fleetcor Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04831-MLB (D. Ariz., Dec. 7, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

FleetCor Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.fleetcor.com/ -- is an
American company that provides fuel cards and workforce payment
products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Love, Esq.
          LOVE CONSUMER LAW
          2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330
          Alpharetta, GA 30009
          Phone: (404) 855-3600
          Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com

FLORIDA INSTITUTE: Navarro Files Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Florida Institute of
Technology, Inc. The case is styled as Joshua Navarro, Benjamin
Komita, Jaden Krekow, Kyle Stewart, Mason Yaskovic, Thomas Francis,
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Florida
Institute of Technology, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-01950-CEM-EJK (M.D.
Fla., Oct. 24, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Education Civil Rights for Civil
Rights Violation.

The Florida Institute of Technology -- https://www.fit.edu/ -- is a
private research university in Melbourne, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Claire M. Diallo, Esq.
          James C. Larew
          LAREW LAW OFFICE
          504 E Bloomington
          Iowa City, IA 52245
          Phone: (319) 337-7079
          Email: claire.diallo@larewlawoffice.com
                 larewlaw@aol.com

          Arthur T Schofield
          ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, PA
          330 Clematis St., Suite 207
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: (561) 655-4211
          Fax: (561) 655-5447
          Email: aschofield@flalabor.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard L. Barry
          Richard E. Mitchell
          GRAYROBINSON, PA
          301 E Pine St Ste 1400
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Phone: (407) 843-8880
          Fax: (407) 244-5690
          Email: richard.barry@gray-robinson.com
                 rmitchell@gray-robinson.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Knight
          BRICKER & ECKLER LLP
          100 S. Third Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 227-2300
          Fax: (614) 227-2390
          Email: jknight@bricker.com

               - and -

          Matthew D Gurbach
          BRICKER & ECKLER LLP
          1350 Euclid Avenue, Suite 650
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Phone: (216) 523-5405
          Fax: (216) 523-7071
          Email: mgurbach@bricker.com


FREUDENBERG MEDICAL: Maya Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alonzo Maya, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. FREUDENBERG MEDICAL, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV38038 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Dec. 5, 2022), is brought against the Defendants' pattern and
practice involving failing to pay the Plaintiff for all regular
and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest
breaks in violation of California law.

The Defendants hired the Plaintiff and the other class members,
classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed
to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal periods
and/or rest breaks. Plaintiff and the other class members worked
over 8 hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their
employment with the Defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and
believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Defendants engaged in
a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees within the State of California.

This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them
for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal
periods and rest breaks in violation of California law. The
Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and the
other class members were entitled to receive certain wages for
overtime compensation and that they were not receiving accurate
overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non
Exempt employee, from December 2020 to December.

FREUDENBERG MEDICAL, LLC is an employer whose employees are engaged
throughout the State of California, including the County of Los
Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 265-1020
          Fax: (818) 265-1021


GATEWAY DIAGNOSTIC: Standerfer FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Angela Standerfer, Victoria Marker, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Gateway Diagnostic
Imaging, LLC, US Radiology Specialists, Inc., Case No.
153-336822-22 was removed from the 153rd Judicial District Court of
Tarrant County, T, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on Oct. 27, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00972-P to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Federal Trade
Commission Act.

Gateway Diagnostic Imaging -- https://www.gatewaydiagnostic.com/ --
is an outpatient medical imaging company with several locations in
the Dallas/Fort Worth area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 744-3000
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Godmundson, 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
          Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          Nathan I. Reiter, III, Esq.
          THE JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 372-1300

               - and -

          Jason Johnston, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          80 S 8th Street, Suite 1100
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 341-0400
          Fax: (612) 341-0844
          Email: Jason.Johnston@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Joseph M Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM
          2754 Erie Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Phone: (513) 381-2333
          Fax: (513) 766-9011
          Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

               - and -

          Ryan Hugh Anderson, Esq.
          Ryan L Thompson, Esq.
          THOMPSON LAW LLP
          3300 Oak Lawn Avenue, Ste. 3rd Floor
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 755-7777
          Fax: (214) 483-5389
          Email: randerson@triallawyers.com
                 rlthompson@triallawyers.com

               - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Phone: (513) 651-3700
          Fax: (513) 665-0219

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tamara D Baggett, Esq.
          BAKER HOSTETLER
          2850 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 210-1208
          Fax: (214) 210-1201
          Email: tbaggett@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

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


HUNTER MECHANICAL: Safi Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Mechanical, et
al. The case is styled as Raymond Safi, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated, Cleveland Street, LLC v.
Hunter Mechanical, Eric Hunter Kellenberger, Case No. 2277CV01043
(Mass. Super. Ct., Essex Cty., Oct. 28, 2022).

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

Hunter Mechanical and Controls -- http://huntermechanical.com/--
builds and installs HVAC and plumbing systems for commercial
buildings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexandria A. Jacobs, Esq.
          W. JACOBS AND ASSOCIATES AT LAW, L.L.C.
          Willows Professional Park
          795 Turnpike Road
          North Andover, MA 01845
          Phone: (978) 688-0900

INNOVATIVE FACILITY: Aires Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Aires, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INNOVATIVE FACILITY SERVICE, LLC, a California limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV38138 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 7, 2022), is brought under the
Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 against the
Defendant who failed to compensate minimum and overtime wages.

The Defendants had and have a practice or policy of failing to
compensate Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees with minimum
wages for all hours worked or otherwise under Defendants' control
as a result of, without limitation, failing to accurately track
and/or pay for all minutes actually worked. 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, Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees working
over 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, and/or 7 straight workdays
in a workweek without paying them proper overtime wages, as a
result of, without limitation, failing to accurately track and/or
pay for all minutes actually worked; engaging, suffering, or
permitting employees to work off the clock, including, without
limitation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to,
facility cleaning.

INNOVATIVE 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.
          Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
          Alexander D. Wallin, 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@tomorrowlaw.com
                 jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
                 alex@tomorrowlaw.com

JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Guerin Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------
Toni Guerin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION and AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP
INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-07423 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2022), is brought
under the Sherman Antitrust Act to restrain the anticompetitive
conduct of Defendants JetBlue Airways Corporation and American
Airlines Group Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") to remedy the
effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct, to protect free market
competition from continued unlawful manipulation, and to remedy
harm to consumers who purchased airline tickets from defendants.

In 2019, Defendants JetBlue and American Airlines began to discuss
what the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and several states
attorneys' general would, in their own lawsuit against Defendants,
call "a modern-day version of a nineteenth-century business trust"
that harms consumers to the tune of $700 million annually. The
agreement, which eliminates head-to-head competition between
JetBlue and American Airlines at four of the largest airports in
the United
States (Boston Logan International Airport, LaGuardia Airport, John
F. Kennedy International Airport ("JFK"), and Newark Liberty
International Airport, leads to supracompetitive prices for
consumers, like the Plaintiff and the members of the Class, who
bought airline tickets from JetBlue and American Airlines after the
agreement was formally entered into on July 15, 2020.

According to the DOJ, the agreement, coined the Northeast Alliance
(the "Alliance"): Commits the Defendants to pool revenues and
coordinate "on all aspects" of network planning at Boston Logan,
JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark Liberty airports, including deciding
together which routes to fly, when to fly them, who will fly them,
and what size planes to use. In addition the Defendants commit to
pool and apportion revenues earned on flights to and from the four
airports such that each partner earns the same revenues regardless
of whether a passenger flies on an American or JetBlue plane.

The DOJ concludes, as this Action does, that the "Alliance is
anticompetitive and unlawful as a whole, and the output
coordination and revenue-sharing restraints present particular
competitive concerns due to their inherently anticompetitive
nature." As such, the Plaintiff and the members of the Class bring
this Action for damages, trebled damages, injunctive relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees against defendants JetBlue and American
Airlines due to their per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased flights directly from JetBlue, and has used
its services at least once during the proposed Class Period.

JetBlue is a New York-based corporation and markets itself as a low
cost airline carrier providing flights to consumers both
domestically and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert M. Rothman
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631/367-7100
          Fax: 631/367-1173
          Email: rrothman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619/231-1058
          Fax: 619/231-7423
          Email: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                 sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com

JOSEPH R. BIDEN: Rhone Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joseph R. Biden, et
al. The case is styled as Bernice Conley, individually and on
behalf of all members of the public similarly situated v. Joseph R.
Biden, in his official capacity as President of the United States;
Merrick Garland, in his official capacity as Attorney General of
the United States; United States Department of Justice; United
States Department of Homeland Security; United States Customs and
Border Protection; Case No. 2:22-cv-07878-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal., Oct.
28, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. --
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-biden/ -- is an
American politician who is the 46th and current president of the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Alexander Zaimi, Esq.
          Jose A Hernandez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GARY CARLIN APC
          301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1550
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Phone: (562) 432-8933
          Fax: (562) 435-1656
          Email: gary@garycarlinlaw.com
                 alex@garycarlinlaw.com
                 jhernandez@garycarlinlaw.com

KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Gennock Putative Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 2, 2022, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Gennock putative class suit.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in April 2017 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc. The
complaint alleged that the Company, in violation of federal law,
published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card
number on customers' receipts and sought statutory and punitive
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 21, 2019, the District Court dismissed the matter and
ruled that the Plaintiffs did not have standing based on the Third
Circuit's recent decision in Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 918 F.3d
102 (3d. Cir. 2019).

Following the dismissal in federal court, on October 25, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to Transfer the case to Pennsylvania
state court, and on August 20, 2020, the court ruled that the
plaintiffs have standing.

The Company appealed that ruling, and on April 27, 2022, the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania granted the Company's petition for
permission to appeal.

On November 10, 2022, the Company filed its Reply Brief with the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

The Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and
intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations.

Kirkland's, Inc. is a retailer of home furnishings based in
Tennessee.


KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Miles Putative Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 2, 2022, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Miles putative class suit.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles v.
Kirkland's Stores, Inc.

The case has been removed to United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of
Miles and all other hourly Kirkland's employees in California,
various wage and hour violations and seeks unpaid wages, statutory
and civil penalties, monetary damages and injunctive relief.
Kirkland's denies the material allegations in the complaint and
believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with
California law.

On March 22, 2022, the District Court denied the plaintiff’s
motion to certify in its entirety, and on May 26, 2022, the Ninth
Circuit granted the plaintiff’s petition for permission to
appeal.

The Court has stayed the entire case pending the appeal.

The Company continues to believe the case is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

Kirkland's, Inc. is a retailer of home furnishings based in
Tennessee.


KIRKLAND'S INC: To File Bid to Junk Sicard Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 2, 2022, that the Company plans to
file a motion to dismiss the Sicard putative class suit.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed on August 23, 2022 in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Sicard v. Kirkland's Stores,
Inc.

The complaint alleges, on behalf of Sicard and all other hourly
store employees based in New York, that Kirkland's violated New
York Labor Law Section 191 by failing to pay him and the putative
class members their wages within seven calendar days after the end
of the week in which those wages were earned, rather paying wages
on a bi-weekly basis.

The Company believes the case is without merit and plans to file a
motion to dismiss.

Kirkland's, Inc. is a retailer of home furnishings based in
Tennessee.





LESSEN INC: Green Files Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lessen, Inc. The case
is styled as Rosalis Green, on behalf of herself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lessen, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-23605-CMA (S.D. Fla., Nov. 3, 2022).

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

Lessen -- https://www.lessen.com/ -- is an online platform for
managing properties and maintenance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda E Heystek, Esq.
          Brandon J Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA PA
          1110 N. Florida Ave., Suite 640
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 379-2560
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          Email: aheystek@wfclaw.com
                 bhill@wfclaw.com
                 lcabassa@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
          FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Phone: (727) 254-5255
          Email: miguel@fgbolaw.com


MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: Branch Sues Over Unauthorized Recording
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnnie Branch, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MERIDIAN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-01923-H-AHG (S.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2022), is brought for
damages and injunctive relief against the Defendant, and its
present, former, or future direct and indirect parent companies,
subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, related entities for unauthorized
recordings of conversations with the Plaintiff without any
notification nor warning to the Plaintiff in violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.

Prior to March 2022, the Plaintiff allegedly became delinquent on
debt. The Defendant acquired the Plaintiff's debt, prompting
Defendant to begin calling the Plaintiff to collect. On March 22,
2022, an agent for the Defendant called the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone, leading to a conversation between the Defendant's agent
and the Plaintiff. The agent did not advise the Plaintiff that the
Defendant was recording the call or seek the Plaintiff's consent.
There was no beeping noise or any indication that Defendant was
recording the Plaintiff. The Defendant records all its calls, both
inbound and outbound, like the one(s) it made to the Plaintiff. The
Defendant does not advise anyone that it is recording.

The Defendant recorded or otherwise made unauthorized connection(s)
to the Plaintiff's conversation(s) with the Defendant in violation
of California's statutory and common law against such unlawful
intrusions into a person's private affairs. The Defendant violated
Plaintiff's constitutionally protected privacy rights by failing to
advise or otherwise provide notice at the beginning of the
conversation(s) with Plaintiff that the call(s) would be recorded,
and the Defendant did not try to obtain the Plaintiff's consent
before such recording. The recording or other unauthorized
connections were done over the telephone, without Plaintiff's prior
knowledge or consent. The Plaintiff was damaged thereby, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and resident of the State of
California, County of San Diego.

The Defendant is a North Carolina corporation with its headquarters
located in North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: 619-222-7429
          Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Spencer L. Pfeiff (SBN 343305)
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: 866-219-3343
          Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com
                 Spencer@SwigartLawGroup.com

MICHAEL DIAZ: Pilgrim's Pride Files Petition in D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael Diaz, et al.
The case is styled as Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, on behalf of
herself and a class of those others similarly situated, Petitioner
v. Michael Diaz, Jean-Nichole Diaz, Diaz Family Farms LLC, on their
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Respondents, Case No. 5:22-cv-04413-MGL (D.S.C., Dec. 7, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Arbitration got
Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award.

Michael Diaz is Diaz Family Farms LLC agent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy Yager Jenkins, Esq.
          MCANGUS GOUDELOCK & COURIE (MT PL)
          735 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard, Suite 200
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Phone: (843) 576-2917
          Fax: (843) 534-0605
          Email: amy.jenkins@mgclaw.com


NETFLIX INC: City of East St. Louis Appeals CVCL Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS is taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled
City of East St. Louis, Plaintiff, v. Netflix, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00561-MAB, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the City of
East St. Louis, Illinois brought the putative class action against
the Defendants on behalf of all Illinois cities, villages,
incorporated towns, and counties in which one or more of the
Defendants provide video service. It alleges that the Defendants
have all engaged in ongoing violations of the Illinois Cable and
Video Competition Law (CVCL) by providing video service using the
public rights-of-way without first obtaining authorization from the
Illinois Commerce Commission and without paying the requisite fees
to municipalities (Counts 1 and 2). The Plaintiff also asserts
claims for trespass (Count 3), unjust enrichment (Count 4), and
violation of East St. Louis Municipal Ordinance Section 82-19
(Count 5).

The Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. The Plaintiff filed an omnibus response in opposition to the
motions to dismiss, and each Defendant filed a reply brief. The
Defendants also requested leave to file supplemental authority in
support of their motions to dismiss, which the Court granted over
the Plaintiff's opposition.

On Sept. 23, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Mark A. Beatty. The Court
determined that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that it has a
right of action to bring the lawsuit based on home rule authority.
The Court held that the Plaintiff does not have an express or
implied right of action under the CVCL to bring the suit against
the Defendants. Judge Beatty ruled that the complaint fails to
allege facts demonstrating that the Defendants caused a physical
intrusion, or that the purported physical intrusion interfered with
the Plaintiff's possession of the rights-of-way. The Plaintiff's
position, taken to its logical extension, means that every website,
online service, and user that provides any type of content on the
internet is liable for trespass unless they all obtained explicit
permission to do so from the Plaintiff and every other
municipality. For these reasons, the Court dismissed the case with
prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned City of East St. Louis v. Netflix,
Inc., et al., Case No. 22-2905, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on October 25, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            John J. Driscoll, Esq.
            DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
            1311 Avenida Juan Ponce de Leon, 6th Floor
            San Juan, PR 00907
            Telephone: (618) 444-6049
            Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
            Email: john@jjlegal.com

                    - and -

            Grey R. Chatham, Jr., Esq.
            Charles J. Baricevic, Esq.
            CHATHAM & BARICEVIC
            107 West Main Street, Suite 1
            Belleville, IL 62220
            Telephone: (618) 233-2200
            Facsimile: (618) 233-1589
            Email: greyjr@chathamlaw.org

                    - and -

            Zachary E. Howerton, Esq.
            SMOUSE & MASON, LLC
            223 Duke of Gloucester Street
            Annapolis, MD 21401
            Telephone: (410) 269-6620
            Facsimile: (410) 269-1235
            Email: zeh@smouseandmason.com

                    - and -

            Melissa Sims, Esq.
            MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
            800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
            Knoxville, TN 37929
            Telephone: (815) 878-4674
            Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
            Email: msims@milberg.com

Defendants-Appellees NETFLIX, INC., et al. are represented by:

            Jean A. Pawlow, Esq.
            LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
            555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000
            Washington, DC 20004
            Telephone: (202) 637-3331
            Email: jean.pawlow@lw.com

                    - and -

            Julie Fix Meyer, Esq.
            ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
            7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
            St. Louis, MO 63105
            Telephone: (314) 621-5070
            Facsimile: (314) 621-5065
            Email: jfixmeyer@armstrongteasdale.com

                    - and -

            Mary Rose Alexander, Esq.
            Robert C. Collins, III, Esq.
            LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
            330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
            Chicago, IL 60611
            Telephone: (312) 876-7700
            Facsimile: (312) 993-9767
            Email: mary.rose.alexander@lw.com
                   robert.collins@lw.com

NEW YORK, NY: Court Dismisses Vazquez's Claims Against City & Roth
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN M. VAZQUEZ, Plaintiff v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 21 Civ. 1573 (PAE) (VF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants in full the motion of the City and Dana
Roth to dismiss all claims against them.

Pro se Plaintiff Vazquez brings the action against the City and
Roth, Inspector General for the City's Department of Correction
("NYCDOC"), and others, for violating his civil rights under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983. Vazquez is currently incarcerated at Attica
Correctional Facility. He alleges that the Defendants violated his
civil rights during his incarceration by, inter alia, denying him
access to sufficient medical care, failing to follow administrative
procedures while sanctioning him for fighting with other inmates,
transferring him to other correctional facilities as retaliation
for reporting misconduct by correctional staff, and discriminating
against him on the basis of his race.

Between Sept. 17, 2017, and Jan. 9, 2020, Vazquez was under
NYCDOC's custody while awaiting transfer into federal custody.
Between Sept. 18, 2017, and on Jan. 26, 2018, he was at the
Manhattan Detention Center ("MDC"); between Jan. 26, 2018, and on
June 18, 2019, he was at the Robert N. Davoren Complex on Rikers
Island ("RNDC"); and between June 18, 2019, and Jan. 9, 2020, he
was at the Otis Bantam Correctional Center ("OBCC"), also on Rikers
Island. On Jan. 9, 2020, Vazquez was transferred to state custody.
Vazquez's claims span his incarcerations at MDC, RNDC, and OBCC.

On Feb. 19, 2021, Vazquez filed a complaint, styled as a putative
class action. It brought claims along the lines above against 31
entities and individuals, including correctional officers,
attorneys, judges, and the New York State court system. As
initially brought, the Complaint's claims arose from three sets of
incidents -- at Rikers Island, Attica, and during Vazquez's state
criminal proceedings. Vazquez also sought a temporary restraining
order to enjoin the Defendants, which the Hon. Louis L. Stanton,
United States District Judge, denied on March 1, 2021. On March 22,
2021, Vazquez filed a motion for reconsideration of that denial.

On May 17, 2021, the Court issued a decision dismissing the
complaint in part, but allowing Vazquez to replead certain claims.
It gave Vazquez leave to amend as follows: In light of Vazquez's
pro se status, the Court grants him 60 days' leave to amend his
complaint to detail his claims that he was subjected to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement in Rikers Island. The
Court does not, however, grant Vazquez leave to replead his claims
against immune parties (i.e., judicial officers, prosecutors, and
state agencies); parties against whom Section 1983 claims may not
lie (i.e., private defense attorneys and state FOIL officers);
claims that are barred by the Younger abstention doctrine (i.e.,
those seeking to interfere with pending state criminal charges
against Vazquez); or claims for which venue is not proper in this
District (i.e., those arising out of Vazquez's detention at Attica
in the Western District of New York). Nor does the Court grant
leave to replead his class claims, given his pro se status.  
On July 28, 2021, Vazquez filed the First Amended Complaint (AC),
along with a motion seeking a temporary restraining order to
disqualify the Court on account of alleged bias against Vazquez. On
July 30, 2021, the Court denied that motion.

On Feb. 15, 2022, the City moved to dismiss the AC. On March 25,
2022, Vazquez opposed the motion. On April 8, 2022, the City
replied in support of its motion, to which Roth joined.

Before the Court is a motion by the City and Roth to dismiss all
claims against them, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). On June 17, 2022, the Hon. Valerie Figueredo, United
States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending the Court grants the Defendants' motion in full, for
failure to state plausible Section 1983 claims of deliberate
indifference to medical needs, retaliatory transfer,
discrimination, and procedural due process. Vazquez has filed
objections to the Report, and the City has filed a response.

The City and Roth have appeared and answered the AC. All other
Defendants, including numerous John and Jane Does, have not
appeared or otherwise participated in this action. On Aug. 15,
2022, Vazquez filed a motion seeking a Valentin order from the
Court to assist in serving process on all unserved Defendants and
for identification of all John and Jane Does. That motion is
pending resolution of the City and Roth's motion to dismiss. On
Sept. 8, 2022, Judge Figueredo stated that she would rule on that
motion after the Court's resolution of the motion to dismiss. The
Report does not address the claims, in substance, directed towards
any Defendants other than Roth and the City.

Vazquez raises four objections to the Report. First, he objects to
the recommendation that his claims of deliberate indifference by
defendants to his medical needs—namely, to his requests for
orthopedic footwear, a special mattress and bedding accommodations
for his sciatica, and referrals to specialists -- be dismissed.
Second, he objects to the recommendation to dismiss his claims that
defendants failed to protect him from three violent incidents with
other inmates. Third, he objects to the recommendation to dismiss
his claims that defendants discriminated and retaliated against
him. Fourth, he objects to the recommendation that he be denied
leave to amend his complaint again.

Vazquez also makes three arguments that are not directly responsive
to the Report's recommendations. First, he argues that the Report
fails to address his claims based on the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act ("DPPA"). Second, he argues that his request for a
settlement conference has gone unheeded by the Court. Third, he
argues that the judiciary, including the Court and Judge Figueredo,
has discriminated against him, and engaged in improper
"cherry-picking" with respect to various aspects of factual and
legal analysis in decisions so far rendered.

After liberally construing Vazquez's objections, Judge Engelmayer
identifies only two parts of the Report to which he does not
object. The first is the recommendation to dismiss claims sounding
in violations of procedural due process. The second is the
recommendation that two sets of claims, although untenable against
the City and Roth, be allowed to proceed against other Defendants:
of retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights, and of
sexual abuse. He reviews these recommendations for clear error.

As to the part of the Report that recommends the dismissal of the
deliberate indifference claims, Judge Engelmayer finds that (i) the
AC fails to allege facts indicating that either Roth or the City
knew or should have known about his serious foot condition; (ii)
the AC does not allege any facts on which it could be found that
the City or Roth knew or should have known that sciatica or denial
of appropriate bedding posed a serious or unreasonable risk to
Vazquez's health or safety; and (iii) AC does not allege any facts
concerning any Defendant's knowledge of his conditions in
connection with his denial of surgery for his foot or the denial of
appointments with health specialist.

Accordingly, Judge Engelmayer dismisses the AC's deliberate
indifference claims against Roth and the City based on a denial of
(i) orthopedic footwear to inmates with serious foot conditions;
(ii) denial of accommodations for sciatica; and (iii) access to
foot surgery and medical specialists.

With respect to the Report recommending dismissal of the claims
that Roth and the City failed to protect him from three
known-to-be-dangerous inmates, resulting in three assaults against
him, on the ground that the AC does not allege facts suggesting
that these defendants knew, or should have known, that the inmates
in question were likely to attack Vazquez.

Judge Engelmayer finds that Vazquez's objections do not contain any
counter to the Report's analysis. His allegations, even if treated
as cognizable, do not fill the hole in the AC as to the Defendants'
requisite knowledge. Accordingly, because the AC does not viably
plead a failure-to-protect claim under the Eighth or Fourteenth
Amendments, Judge Engelmayer dismisses these claims against Roth
and the City.

As to the report that recommends dismissal of the claims of
retaliation and discrimination following Vazquez's reports of
sexual abuse by Cruz and Usher, Judge Engelmayer adopts it and
dismisses discrimination claims against Roth and the City. He finds
that the objections do nothing to salvage the claims against Roth,
as there are no facts pled that she participated in, knew, or
should have known about the alleged retaliation, or against the
City, under a theory of municipal liability via a policy or
practice of promoting or tolerating retaliation for such
complaints. Vazquez also, in his objections, does not more than
restate allegations in the AC, but these do not provide a
non-speculative basis to infer discriminatory intent by Roth or the
City.

With respect to the recommendation to deny leave to amend, Judge
Engelmayer opines Vazquez is correct that the Report advises him to
amend his complaint to plead whether he was a pretrial detainee or
state prisoner at the time of the various claims. But amending the
AC in this limited fashion, while clarifying the claims against
others, would not do anything to fortify the claims asserted
against Roth and the City. He therefore adopts the recommendation
to deny leave to amend the AC further as to the City and Roth.

Finally, regarding the additional claims, Judge Engelmayer holds
that (i) the Report is persuasive that Vazquez should be permitted
to pursue his sexual abuse claims against parties yet to be served,
and to amend for the limited purpose of clarifying his status at
the pertinent point; (ii) he does read the AC to allege procedural
due process claims; (iii) the AC does not allege any facts that
would plausibly plead that the claimed violations of his rights
derived from a municipal policy or custom; (iv) although Vazquez is
at liberty to pursue such claims against other Defendants, no such
claims have been made, or will be permitted to be added, against
the City and Roth, the only moving Defendants; (v) he will not
compel the City to participate in a settlement conference, as it
has not expressed any interest in doing so; (vi) Vazquez is
entitled to receive assistance from the District Court in
identifying and serving the Defendants; and (vii) Vazquez's attacks
on the judiciary are unfounded.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Engelmayer adopts the Report in
full. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions
pending at dockets 55 and 73 and to terminate defendants the City
and Roth. For avoidance of doubt, Vazquez is at liberty to pursue
all claims in the AC as against the Defendants not parties to the
motion to dismiss (i.e., those who have either not been served or
identified).

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 2, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdcp95ch from Leagle.com.


NORTHSTAR ELECTRICAL: Bonilla Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Bonilla, in his individual capacity and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Northstar Electrical
Services and Contractors, Inc., and Robert Laplaca, in his
individual, Case No. 2:22-cv-06642-LDH-JMW (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 1,
2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Law, New
York Labor law, New York State Department of Labor Regulations,
common law, and other appropriate rules, regulations, statutes and
ordinances, alleging that the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery
from the Defendants: overtime compensation for all hours work in
excess of 40 hours per week, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Plaintiff has been subject to the Defendant's decisions,
policies, plans and common policies, programs, practices,
procedural protocols, routines, and rules willfully failing and
refusing to pay them overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular hourly rate for hours working excess of 40
hours per week as compensable travel time, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an electrician.

Northstar operates as a contractor, providing commercial and
residential electric services to clients throughout the tri-state
area.[BN]

          Christopher K. Collotta, Esq.
          ZABELL & COLLOTTA, P.C.
          1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
          Bohemia, NY 11716
          Phone: (631) 539-7242
          Fax: (631) 563-7475
          Email: ccollotta@laborlawsny.com

PNC BANK: Reynoso Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Nicole Reynoso, on her own behalf and on behalf of the general
public, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PNC BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a United States Corporation, BBVA USA, an
Alabama Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
30-2022-01290564-CU-OE-CJC (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 7, 2022), is
brought against the Defendants failure to pay all wages earned to
the Plaintiff as a result of the unlawful employment policies and
practices.

The Plaintiff was routinely unable, and not authorized to take
their 10-minute rest periods and were also unable to take an
uninterrupted 30-minute meal break for every shift they worked.
Specifically, the Plaintiff was forced to continue working through
their meal and rest breaks in order to assist the Defendant's
needs. Because of this, the Plaintiff was unable to take their
required meal and rest breaks. Moreover, the Defendants failed to
pay premium wages of one hour's pay for each missed meal and rest
break to the Plaintiff who was denied timely meal and rest breaks,
in violation of Labor Code.

The Defendant failed to pay all overtime wages due to the
Plaintiff. The Defendant pays Plaintiff bonuses and commissions,
which are not included in the employees' regular rate of pay for
purposes of computing the proper overtime rate. As a result, the
Plaintiff was not properly compensated for work performed in excess
of 8 hours in a workday and work performed in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek at a rate of no less than one- and one-half times the
regular rate of pay. This failure to pay all overtime wages
constitutes violations of Labor Code, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in or around August
of 2017.

The Defendants were licensed to do business within the City of
Irvine, County of Orange.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          Nidah Farishta, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
          5743 Corsa Ave, Suite 123
          Westlake Village, CA 91362
          Phone: (818) 293-5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
          Email: Roman@OLFLA.com
                 Nidah@OLFLA.com


REALPAGE INC: Johnson Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC;
LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; MID-AMERICA APARTMENT
COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL;
THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.; THRIVE
COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; and SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-01734 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 7, 2022), is brought challenging 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.

Until 2016, and potentially earlier, many of the nation's largest
Lessors priced their leases based upon their own assessments of how
to best compete against other Lessors. Lessors generally priced
their units competitively to maximize occupancy (that is,
maximizing output). Lessors had an incentive to lower their prices
to attract lessees away from their competitors, until all available
leases were sold. In this way, competition drove rent levels to
reflect available supply of rental units and lessee demand. Lessors
also independently determined when to put their leases on the
market, resulting in unpredictable supply levels--a natural
phenomenon in a competitive market. When supply exceeded demand,
Lessors cut prices.

However, beginning in approximately 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 the 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. By staggering lease renewals to
artificially smooth out natural imbalances of supply and demand,
RealPage and participating Lessors also eliminate any incentive to
undercut or cheat on the cartel (avoiding a race to the bottom, or
"prisoner's dilemma"). This is a central mantra of RealPage, to
sacrifice "physical" occupancy (i.e., to decrease output) in
exchange for "economic" occupancy, a manufactured term RealPage
uses to refer to increasing prices and decreasing occupancy
(output) in the market.

RealPage is proud of its role in the exploding increase in the
prices of residential leases. In a marketing video used to attract
additional Lessors to the conspiracy, a RealPage Vice President
discussed the recent and never-before seen price increases for
residential real estate leases, as high as 14.5% in some markets.
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, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has rented a multifamily residential unit in a
property now managed by Lessor Defendant Greystar Real Estate
Partners, LLC.

RealPage provides software and services to the residential real
estate industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Breanna Van Engelen, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: ( 206) 623-0594
          Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
                 breannav@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Brian D. Clark, Esq.
          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          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: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
                 hmsilton@locklaw.com
                 bdclark@locklaw.com
                 wjbruckner@locklaw.com

RESTONIC SALES: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Restonic Sales, Inc.
The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Restonic Sales, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06624-NGG-LB (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022).

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

Restonic -- https://restonic.com/ -- manufactures quality
mattresses since 1938.[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

RESTORATION HARDWARE: Ahnfeldt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Restoration Hardware,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ashley Ahnfeldt, Neda Arbabi,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
employees of Defendants v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Does 1 through
100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22602762 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Nov. 4, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Restoration Hardware, Inc. -- https://rh.com/ -- is an upscale
American home-furnishings company headquartered in Corte Madera,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Stephen Arns, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom Street, Third Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105


ROTARY INTERNATIONAL: Renfro Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rotary International.
The case is styled as Kemberly Renfro, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated v. Rotary International, Case No.
1:22-cv-06132 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 4, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Employment
Discrimination.

Rotary International -- https://www.rotary.org/ -- is a
humanitarian service organization that brings together business and
professional leaders in order to provide community service, promote
integrity, and advance goodwill, peace, and understanding in the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Edward Meyer, Jr., Esq.
          Blake William Buether, Esq.
          FUKSA KHORSHID LLC
          200 W. Superior, Suite 410
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 266-2221
          Fax: (312) 266-2224
          Email: william@fklawfirm.com
                 blake@fklawfirm.com


RUSHMORE LOAN: Fattorusso Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Leann Fattorusso, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. MON-L-003109-22 was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Civil Division, Monmouth County,
to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
on Dec. 7, 2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-07126.

The Plaintiff's Complaint brings two counts against Rushmore. The
Plaintiff's First Count alleges a claim under the New Jersey
Declaratory Judgment Act ("NJDA"). The Plaintiff's Second Count
alleges claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Rushmore violated the
FDCPA "in connection with their communications to Plaintiff and
others similarly situated."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph N. Froehlich, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          Brookfield Place
          200 Vesey Street, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10281-2101
          Phone: 212-415-8600
          Fax: 212-303-2754
          Email: Jfroehlich@lockelord.com

SHARON & CRESCENT: Pais Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sharon & Crescent
United Credit Union. The case is styled as Suzanne Dos Santos Pais,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sharon &
Crescent United Credit Union, Case No. 2284CV02759 (Mass. Super.
Ct., Suffolk Cty., Dec. 7, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Business Litigation."

Sharon & Crescent United Credit Union -- https://www.scucu.com/ --
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 Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Michael Hixon, Esq.
          HACKETT FEINBERG P.C.
          155 Federal St., 9th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110

SOMNIA: Chabak Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Chabak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOMNIA, INC., Case No. 7:22-cv-09341-PMH (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 31, 2022), is brought to address the Defendant's inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information, and for failing
to provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and Class
Members that their Private Information had been subject to the
unauthorized access of an unknown third party and to specify the
types of information accessed.

On July 11, 2022 or July 15, 2022, Somnia lost control of the
highly sensitive private and medical information of the patients'
of its Anesthesia Providers as a result of a data breach
perpetrated by an unauthorized party which gained access to
Defendant's computer system (the "Data Breach"). While all of these
Anesthesia Providers have submitted separate reports of the Data
Breach to federal and/or state authorities, upon investigation,
information and good faith belief, Somnia itself has thus far made
only a limited disclosure of the data breach involving only 1,326
patients in NY--despite the fact that 18 of its affiliates report
that on July 11, 2022 or July 15, 2022 a "data security incident
impacting its Management Company" occurred "that may have resulted
in the compromise of protected health information for the
Provider's patients."

It appears that Somnia is trying to completely avoid any and all
responsibility for the Data Breach, and is using its local
practices to obscure the identity of the responsible entity as well
as to downplay the severity of the Data Breach, which compromised
Private Information of more than 400,000 victims. On October 24,
2022, or more than three months after the Data Breach occurred, ten
of Defendant's Anesthesia Providers disclosed the Data Breach to
the Attorney General of Montana. Montana disclosures attach
identical data breach notification letters for each of Defendant's
affiliate practices ("Notices").

These Notices are not only extremely vague but also legally
inadequate. First, they obscure that fact that Somnia is the
responsible party which exposed (or, at least, left vulnerable)
patients' highly sensitive Private Information, stating instead
that provider's "management company identified suspicious activity
on its systems" which resulted in loss of access to some of
Somnia's systems, and that patients' "protected health information
may have been affected."

After a data breach, most companies at least try to make it appear
as if they are taking appropriate steps to secure their customers'
Private Information. Somnia is not even pretending it is doing what
is necessary and appropriate to inform and to protect 406,376
affected individuals whose personal and highly sensitive data has
been compromised.

The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and the Class
Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately
robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Class
Members' PII and PHI; failing to take standard and reasonably
available steps to prevent the Data Breach, and  failing to provide
Plaintiff and the Class Members with a prompt, complete and
accurate notice of the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach,
Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and
imminent risk of fraud, financial identity theft, and medical
identity theft, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a patient at the Defendant's anesthesia provider
practice, Anesthesia Associates of El Paso, Texas and entrusted her
Private Information to Defendant.

Somnia Inc., also doing business as Somnia Anesthesia, is a private
anesthesia practice management and perioperative medical company,
incorporated and headquartered in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 558-5500


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Chen Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christine Chen, Michael Nguyen, and all other
similarly situated employees of SS&C v. SS&C TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Case No. 22-cv-02190-JPC-SLC was moved from the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Dec.
7, 2022, and assigned Case No. 9:22-cv-81895-XXXX.

On a return date set by the Court, to transfer venue over motions
related to a subpoena to the SDNY, the issuing court, pursuant to
the Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 45(f), upon consent of the party being
subpoenaed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kara S. Miller, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 943-9080
          Fax: (212) 943-9082

               - and -

          Michael Reitzell, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL P. REITZELL P.A.
          319 Clematis Street, Suite 218
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: (561) 478-4001
          Fax: (561) 828-3137
          Email: mreitzell@reitzellpa.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Liza M. Velazquez, Esq.
          Hallie S. Goldblatt, Esq.
          Emily M. Miller, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 373-3000
          Email: lvelazquez@paulweiss.com
                 hgoldblatt@paulweiss.com
                 emiller@paulweiss.com


STEWARD HEALTH: Wegerbauer Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Wegerbauer, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. STEWARD HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, LLC, RALPH DE LA TORRE,
M.D., and CHRISTOPHER DUNLEAVY, (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty.,
Nov. 7, 2022), is brought in violation of the Wage Act as a result
of the Defendants' failure to timely pay the Plaintiff's wages
in full.

From time to time, employees of Steward are terminated
involuntarily, including through reductions in force/layoffs. On
October 14 and 17, 2022, the Plaintiff and numerous other Steward
employees in Massachusetts (and elsewhere) were informed that they
were being laid off, effectively immediately. Steward failed to pay
the Plaintiff's wages in full on her last day of work.

Instead, Steward delivered Plaintiff's final paycheck to her, dated
October 24, 2022, by FedEx on October 25, 2022--eight days after
Plaintiff's involuntary termination. Stewart's failure to pay
Plaintiff her earned compensation and accrued vacation on the date
of her termination (October 17, 2022), violated the Wage Act.

Further, the paycheck that the Plaintiff received on October 25,
2022 did not even include all wages due to her. Specifically, the
Plaintiff's check did not include a 2% raise that should have gone
into effect on October 9, 2022. Steward's illegal failure to timely
pay the Plaintiff's wages in full, including all earned
compensation and vacation time, on the date of her involuntary
termination was consistent with Defendant's policies and practices,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was an employee of Steward working in Massachusetts.

Steward is a provider of health care services that operates
nationwide, including without limitation in Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric R. LeBlanc, Esq.
          Michaela C. May, Esq.
          BENNETT & BELFORT, P.C.
          24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300
          Cambridge, MA 02141
          Phone: (617) 577-8800
          Email: eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com
                 mmay@bennettandbelfort.com


STUCKEYS CORPORATION: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stuckeys Corporation.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Stuckeys Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-10346 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2022).

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

Stuckey's -- https://stuckeys.com/ -- offers world-famous pecan log
rolls, old-fashioned candies, Georgia grown pecans, corporate
gifts, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPER CLEAN: Pineda Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Leonarda Pineda, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Super Clean Custodial, LLC, a California
limited liability company; Clean Site Environmental Services, LLC,
a California limited liability company; and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 22CV405663 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara, Oct.
31, 2022), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages as a
result of the Defendants' systematic violations of the California
law.

The Defendants have implemented unlawful written policies and
practice of willfully misclassifying their employees as independent
contractors. The Defendant do this for one reason: to avoid
compliance with California wage and hours, and thereby maximize
profits at the expense of their workers. Numerous violations,
including inter alia failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to maintain
required records, etc., have resulted from this misclassification,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Custodian.

Clean Site provides commercial janitorial services to its
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT ERNEST WHEELER
          250 West First Street, Suite 216
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Phone: (909) 621-4988
          Facsimile: (909) 621-4622
          Email: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Aubrey Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
          Long Beach, CA 90820
          Phone: (310) 590-4503
          Email: awand@wandalawfirm.com

SUPERIOR STAFFING: Rivas FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ana M. Diaz Rivas and Patricia Martinez, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated laborers,
known and unknown v. SUPERIOR STAFFING, INC. and FAREVA MORTON
GROVE, INC, Case No. 2022CH08265 was removed from the Circuit Court
of Cook County Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 2, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06048 to the
proceeding.

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

Superior Staffing, Inc. -- https://www.superior-staffing.com/ --
offer a range of consulting and recruiting services designed to
help your company meet its demanding employee staffing needs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark H. Birhanu, Esq.
          Kevin L. Herrera, Esq.
          Ada Sandoval, Esq.
          RAISE THE FLOOR ALLIANCE – LEGAL DEPT.
          1 N. LaSalle St, Ste 1275
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 795-9115

               - and -

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          Tyler Sprague, Esq.
          NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
          1 N. LaSalle St, Ste 1275
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 795-9121

The Defendants are represented by:

          William John Tarnow, Esq.
          Alexis M Dominguez, Esq.
          NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP
          Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 269-8000
          Email: wtarnow@ngelaw.com
                 adominguez@nge.com

               - and -

          Tevin L Hopkins, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 4100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 750-8602
          Email: thopkins@mcguirewoods.com


SYNGENTA CROP: DeLine Sues Over Sherman Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Donald F. DeLine (d/b/a DeLine Farms North, DeLine Farms South, and
DeLine Farms Partnership), individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG, SYNGENTA
CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, and CORTEVA, INC., Case
No. 1:22-cv-01056 (M.D.N.C., Dec. 7, 2022), is brought to secure
injunctive relief, and to recover actual and compensatory damages,
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs for the injury caused by
the Defendants' wrongful conduct in violation of Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act.

Farmers have been grappling with skyrocketing operating expenses
for years. In a 2018 survey, 80% of farmers reported their costs
were increasing and they were unable to pay their debts—estimated
to be over $400 billion as of 2019. In the latest-revealed scheme
to take advantage of farmers in the United States, Syngenta and
Corteva have each implemented special "loyalty programs" in
connection with key active ingredients that are incorporated into
products that farmers use to protect crops from damage caused by
insects, weeds, and fungi ("pesticides").

Under these loyalty programs, Syngenta and Corteva provide payments
to distributors in exchange for selling certain amounts of
pesticides manufactured by Defendants and restricting sales of
generic pesticides made by competing manufacturers. The Defendants
implement and enforce these loyalty programs to ensure that
manufacturers of generic pesticides are unable to effectively
distribute their products, which preserves Defendants' control of
the market and prevents price competition.

As reflected in a recent complaint filed by the Federal Trade
Commission (the "FTC") and ten state Attorneys General, Syngenta's
and Corteva's scheme has succeeded. In order to obtain Defendants'
loyalty payments, distributors severely curtail sales of, and in
some cases wholly refrain from selling, pesticides that compete
with those manufactured by Defendants. Without these distributors,
competing manufacturers cannot effectively sell their pesticides
and farmers are forced to purchase Defendants' higher-priced
products. As a result, farmers face decreased innovation, fewer
choices, and increased prices totaling at least hundreds of
millions of dollars in overcharges.

On September 29, 2022, following an investigation, the FTC filed a
complaint against Syngenta and Corteva alleging that Defendants'
loyalty programs foreclose generic competition and result in higher
prices for farmers in violation of federal and state antitrust
laws. Since they profit from participating in Defendants' loyalty
programs and face significant financial consequences if they do
not, these distributors readily exclude generic pesticides from
their distribution lists. As a result, generic competitors are
almost entirely foreclosed from efficiently distributing their
products. Prices remain high and farmers pay millions of dollars
more than they otherwise would have for pesticides containing
Defendants' ingredients. The Defendants, on the other hand, are
able to maintain high prices and dominant market positions years
after their exclusivity expires. While Defendants and their
distributors benefit, farmers are left to pay supracompetitive
prices for pesticides and are deprived of access to cheaper generic
alternatives.

As a result of the conduct of the Defendants and their
co-conspirators, the Defendants have restrained competition,
maintained unlawful monopolies, and harmed America's farmers,
reducing choices for these farmers and costing them at least
hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges. The Plaintiff and
the Classes bring this antitrust suit under federal antitrust laws,
state antitrust and consumer protections laws, and for unjust
enrichment to redress that wrongful conduct, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Donald F. DeLine owns and operates partnerships
DeLine Farms North, DeLine Farms South, and Deline Farms
Partnership ("DeLine Farms"), each located in Charleston, Missouri.
DeLine Farms owns and operates farms in Missouri, Arkansas,
Illinois, Mississippi, and Tennessee and is the largest family
owned farming business in the United States.

Syngenta Protection AG is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland and
is organize and existing under the laws of Switzerland. Since in or
about May 2021, Syngenta Crop Protection AG has been an indirect
subsidiary of Sinochem Holdings Corporation Ltd., a chemical
company based in Beijing, China.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          F. Hill Allen, Esq.
          Melissa Hill, Esq.
          THARRINGTON SMITH LLP
          Wells Fargo Building
          150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1800
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Phone: 919-821-4711
          Email: hallen@tharringtonsmith.com
                 wsmith@tharringtonsmith.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          205 N. Monroe Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: 215-864-2800
          Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
                 emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Nyran Rose Rasche
          Alexander J. Sweatman
          Kaitlin Naughton
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-782-4880
          Email: nrasche@caffertyclobes.com
                 asweatman@caffertyclobes.com
                 knaughton@caffertyclobes.com

TIGER SPORTS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Tiger Sports
Shop, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. The Tiger Sports Shop, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10348-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2022).

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

The Tiger Sports Shop -- https://www.tigersports.com/ -- is the
largest retailer of Everything Clemson for the Clemson Fan in
Clemson, South Carolina.[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


TORRID HOLDINGS INC: Continues to Defend Waswick Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Torrid Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Waswick class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

In November 2022, a class action complaint was filed against us in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
captioned Sandra Waswick v. Torrid Holdings Inc., et al. The
complaint alleges that certain statements in the Company's
registration statement on Form S-1 related to our IPO were
allegedly false and misleading.

The Company believes that these allegations are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend itself against these claims.

Torrid is a fashion retailer specializing in plus-size apparel and
intimates.[BN]


TOURNEAU LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tourneau, LLC. The
case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Tourneau, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10356
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2022).

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

Tourneau, LLC -- https://www.tourneau.com/ -- designs and retails
watches. The Company offers digital, chronograph, casual, and
formal watches for men and women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TRULIEVE INC: O'Neal Files Suit in N.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trulieve, Inc. The
case is styled as Ranjill O'Neal, on behalf of herself and a class
of those others similarly situated v. Trulieve, Inc., Case No.
4:22-cv-00433-AW-MJF (N.D. Fla., Dec. 7, 2022).

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

Trulieve -- https://www.trulieve.com/ -- is a leading provider in
medical and recreational cannabis and CBD products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Charles Kostelnik, Esq.
          Tiffany Rousseau Cruz, Esq.
          CRUZ LAW FIRM PA - TALLAHASSEE FL
          411 N Calhoun Street
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Phone: (850) 701-8838
          Email: kevin@tiffanycruzlaw.com
                 tiffany@tiffanycruzlaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan David Barack, Esq.
          KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC - CLEARWATER FL
          304 S Belcher Road, Suite C
          Clearwater, FL 33765-3900
          Phone: (727) 441-4947
          Fax: (727) 447-3158
          Email: rbarack@employeerights.com


ULTA SALON: Brito Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lillian Brito, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance,
Inc., Case No. 22-CA-008855 was removed from the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
on Dec. 7, 2022, and assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02783-CEH-TGW.

The Plaintiff's single-count Complaint seeks relief from the
Defendant, on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly
situated persons, for allegedly making or causing to be made
multiple unlawful "telephonic sales calls" without the "prior
express written consent" of Plaintiff and the putative class
members, in purported violation of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Josh A. Migdal, Esq.
          Yaniv Adar, Esq.
          MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: (305) 374-0440
          Email: josh@markmigdal.com
                 yaniv@markmigdal.com
                 eservice@markmigdal.com


UNITED BEHAVIORAL: MultiPlan Compelled to Show Documents in LD Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LD, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02254-YGR (JCS) (N.D. Cal.), Chief
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California:

   a. grants the Plaintiffs' motion to compel as to MultiPlan on
      the basis that it has waived attorney-client privilege and
      work product protection as to all of the documents listed
      on its Revised Privilege Log; and

   b. denies MultiPlan's Motion to Seal the Revised Privilege
      Log.

Judge Spero addresses the Plaintiffs' challenges to the adequacy of
MultiPlan's privilege log and whether it has improperly withheld
documents on the basis of privilege or under the work product
doctrine. The Plaintiffs first raised these issues in a July 31,
2022 joint discovery letter and then in a motion to compel, filed
in response to the Court's request for full briefing on the
dispute.

On Oct. 3, 2022, Judge Spero issued an order with rulings and
guidance related to the Plaintiffs' disputes with MultiPlan. Among
other things, it rejected the MultiPlan's blanket assertion that it
was not a fiduciary and therefore, that the fiduciary exception to
attorney-client privilege did not apply to any of the documents it
withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege. It further
found that MultiPlan's privilege log did not provide sufficient
information to allow the Plaintiffs (or the Court) to determine
whether the withheld documents were, in fact, privileged or work
product. The Court also found that MultiPlan's reliance on vague
references to a governmental investigation to justify withholding
documents was not sufficient to establish that those documents were
properly withheld.

The Court ordered MultiPlan to produce to the Plaintiffs a revised
privilege log that took into account the guidance in its Oct. 3,
2022 Order and gave the parties an opportunity to meet and confer
to determine whether any discovery disputes remained. Recognizing,
however, that as to many of the doctrines discussed in the Oct. 3,
2022 Order it is sometimes difficult to determine where the line
should be drawn between protected material and material that is
subject to disclosure, the Court agreed to review, in camera, a
sample of withheld documents in order to provide further guidance
to the parties if necessary.

It was the expectation of Judge Spero that MultiPlan would revise
its privilege log to take into account the Court's rulings and make
a good-faith effort to narrow its disputes to those that involved
issues where it was genuinely difficult to determine where to draw
the line consistent with the Court's prior rulings. Further, given
that the Court had made clear that MultiPlan's privilege log
contained insufficient information to support its claims of
privilege and work product protection, he expected that as to the
documents MultiPlan continued to claim were subject to withholding,
it would supply supporting declarations containing sufficient
details to support their claims. That is not what occurred.

Instead, MultiPlan -- without first asking the Court to reconsider
the rulings in its Oct. 3, 2022 Order or appealing those rulings to
the district judge -- informed the Plaintiffs of a recent decision
from the Central District of California, which supports the
conclusion that MultiPlan is not an ERISA fiduciary and thus is not
subject to the fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege.
MultiPlan also informed the Plaintiffs of the U.S. Supreme Court's
recent grant of certiorari in a Ninth Circuit case relied upon by
this Court in applying the primary purpose test to determine
whether its assertions of privilege were sufficient with respect to
communications involving its in-house counsel.

In short, MultiPlan simply ignored the rulings and guidance in the
Oct. 3, 2022 Order on these issues, insisting that it was not bound
by those rulings and filing an unsolicited supplemental brief to
that effect on Oct. 28, 2022. In the meantime, the parties'
briefing related to class certification continued, with a hearing
on that motion set for Jan. 11, 2023.

On Nov. 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs brought a motion to strike
MultiPlan's Supplemental Brief on the basis that it was an improper
sur-reply, an improper motion for reconsideration, improper filing
of supplemental material, and an improper objection after the
fourteen days permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Although the
undersigned agrees that MultiPlan's Supplemental Brief was
improper, it declined to strike it because of the potentially high
stakes involved in connection with the parties' discovery dispute.
Under such circumstances, resolution of the dispute on the merits
is desirable when that is possible. Therefore, the Court denied the
motion to strike and requested that the Plaintiffs respond to
MultiPlan's arguments on the merits. The Plaintiffs filed their
response on Nov. 9, 2022.

Judge Spero addresses MultiPlan's arguments challenging the rulings
in the Oct. 3, 2022 Order. MultiPlan argues that it cannot be
compelled to produce documents under the fiduciary exception
because the Court has not yet made a "definitive determination that
MultiPlan and/or Viant were engaged in any fiduciary function and
that MultiPlan and/or Viant otherwise qualify as an ERISA
fiduciary." Furthermore, it asserts, another district judge found
on summary judgment that MultiPlan was not a fiduciary and
therefore the undersigned erred in finding that the fiduciary
exception may apply to MultiPlan.

Judge Spero finds this argument to have no merit. First, given that
the district judge in this case has found plausible the Plaintiffs'
allegations that MultiPlan acted as a fiduciary in connection with
its repricing of claims for United, he declines to adopt the
conclusion of a different judge on a different record to reach the
opposite conclusion. Second, MultiPlan cited authority to support
its assertion that no discovery should be compelled under the
fiduciary exception until a final determination has been made that
it is a fiduciary.

Next, Judge Spero revisits the question of whether MultiPlan has
waived the protections claimed in its privilege log as grounds for
withholding the documents listed therein in light of its failure to
comply with the Court's Oct. 3, 2022 Order and the Court's in
camera review of the 50 sample documents selected by the Plaintiffs
and lodged by MultiPlan. He finds that MultiPlan has waived all of
the protections asserted in the Revised Privilege Log and that the
documents listed on it must be produced to Plaintiffs.

Having concluded that MultiPlan's reasons for ignoring the Court's
Oct. 3, 2022 Order have no merit, Judge Spero summarizes some of
the key take-aways from that order:

      a. Where the purpose of a communication is only to offer
business advice or, in the case of dual purpose communications, the
primary purpose of the communication is to give or receive business
advice rather than legal advice, the communication may not be
withheld on the grounds of attorney-client privilege, even if the
communication involves an attorney; in the case of a communication
that includes corporate in-house counsel, the proponent of the
privilege must make a clear showing that the primary purpose of the
withheld communication is legal rather than business.

      b. MultiPlan may not claim attorney-client privilege or
withhold as work product documents and communications relating to
its conduct as a fiduciary, including its repricing of plan member
claims, unless the document is related to specific litigation that
is actual or imminent.

      c. There is no broad protection for documents related to
governmental investigations but certain governmental proceedings
are sufficiently adversarial to qualify as litigation for the
purposes of work product protection.

Finally, Judge Spero addresses an ancillary dispute concerning
whether MultiPlan's revised privilege log should be filed under
seal. He finds MultiPlan has not met its burden as to that request.
First, it is undisputed that MultiPlan did not designate any
portion of the Revised Privilege Log as "CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS'
EYES ONLY" before producing it to the Plaintiffs, as is required
under Section 5.2 of the Protective Order. Second, MultiPlan's
allegations in the Motion to Seal and supporting declarations that
disclosure would lead to irreparable harm are broad and
unsubstantiated. In any event, in light of the conclusion of his
that MultiPlan has waived attorney-client privilege and work
product protection as to the underlying documents listed on the
Revised Privilege Log, Judge Spero concludes that MultiPlan cannot
show that failure to seal the Revised Privilege Log will lead to
irreparable harm.

For these reason, Judge Spero grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
compel as to MultiPlan on the basis that it has waived
attorney-client privilege and work product protection as to all of
the documents listed on its Revised Privilege Log, which will be
produced to the Plaintiffs by Dec. 16, 2022. He denies the Motion
to Seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 2, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2e65tsyz from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Court Grants Smith Nationwide Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PETRINA SMITH, Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant, Case No. 19-1348 (Fed. Cl.), Judge Carolyn N. Lerner of
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims grants the Plaintiff's Renewed
Motion for Nationwide Conditional Certification.

Ms. Smith worked as an Assistant Canteen Chief ("ACC") for the
Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Canteen Service ("VCS")
from September 2012 to February 2019 at locations in Palo Alto and
Menlo Park, California. She alleges that the VCS improperly
classifies ACCs as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's
("FLSA") overtime pay requirements.

Ms. Smith alleges that she and other similarly situated ACCs were
improperly misclassified because most of her work involved
non-exempt "manual, rather than managerial, tasks." According to
her, she routinely worked more than the standard 40-hour workweek,
regularly clocking in 80 to 95 hours per week. She alleges that she
complained to management about this practice, yet VCS took no
action. All told, Ms. Smith alleges that had she been properly
classified as non-exempt, she would have earned approximately
$1,808 in overtime pay per week.

Lastly, Ms. Smith claims that she is not alone. She alleges that
the VCS has a uniform pay practice of misclassifying ACCs as exempt
despite their spending the majority of time on non-exempt, manual
tasks. She further states that she witnessed other ACCs at her
locations subjected to similar work requirements.

Ms. Smith sued the VCS on Sept. 4, 2019, on behalf of herself and
all similarly situated current and former ACCs who might be
entitled to overtime pay. Ms. Smith seeks unpaid overtime pay and
moves for conditional certification of a nationwide collective
action so that other similarly situated ACCs may opt-in to this
suit for overtime wages.

Before the Court is the Plaintiff's second motion for nationwide
conditional certification. The Plaintiff's first motion was
originally filed and assigned to Judge Roumel before the case was
transferred to Judge Lerner. The United States argued against
nationwide certification in response to Ms. Smith's first motion.
At oral argument, it alleged that Ms. Smith failed to present
evidence from a sufficiently large group but agreed that a "larger
swath" of "nine people" could be enough to demonstrate a similar
nationwide policy required to issue notice.

The parties undertook additional discovery following the court's
order granting limited notice, and on April 21, 2022, the Plaintiff
filed a Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice,
again requesting nationwide certification of a collective action.
Following partial denial of her first motion on these grounds, Ms.
Smith returned with substantively more evidence to support finding
a nationwide common practice of misclassification. She provided
declarations from 13 other ACCs, who worked at 22 VCS canteens
representing all 15n VCS nationwide regions.

Judge Lerner opines that the updated evidence in Ms. Smith's
Renewed Motion is sufficient to meet the factual burden. She finds
that the Plaintiff subsequently collected thirteen declarations
from 22 national canteens, including outside the cities of St.
Louis, New York, and Portland, as the Government suggested at oral
argument. Faced with this new evidence, the Government moves the
goalposts, claiming she relies on only 12 declarations as allegedly
representative of the duties and responsibilities of more than 600
ACCs nationwide. But the Plaintiff's additional evidence is
sufficient to meet the standard previously articulated by the
Government and in Smith I.

Moreover, at this stage in conditional certification, Judge Lerner
points out that it is not the Plaintiff's burden to prove that an
FLSA violation did in fact occur. Nor is the Plaintiff required to
prove that all ACCs experience the same working conditions or same
denial of overtime pay. Instead, the Plaintiff must only show that
she was "similarly situated" to other ACCs in regard to the FLSA
claim based on the evidence submitted. The merits are left for the
next procedural step. The Plaintiff has provided a sufficient
factual basis to grant nationwide conditional certification for
ACCs employed at the VCS. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Renewed
Motion is granted.

The Plaintiff asks for the same discovery for nationwide ACCs, with
the additional request to supplement mail notification with email.
The Government agrees that both regular mail and email are
appropriate for discovery. Accordingly, Judge Lerner directs the
Government to provide to the Plaintiff in electronic format the
names, last known mailing addresses, and job titles of all putative
collective action members for ACCs who worked at nationwide VCS
locations in the past three years, consistent with the Opinion and
Order.

Lastly, the Plaintiff requests equitable tolling of potential
collective action members' claims. She requests that the statute of
limitations be tolled for all individuals who have signed the
consent to sue forms, but whose forms were either stricken by the
Court, or not yet filed as a result of the Court's April 5, 2022
Order. She argues that regardless of the Court's approved limited
notice for Palo Alto and Menlo Park, consent-to-sue forms may be
filed outside of the conditional certification notice.

Judge Lerner holds that even if potential plaintiffs were permitted
to file consent forms prior to conditional certification, Smith I
was within its discretion to limit the collective action's scope.
The Plaintiff has not moved to reconsider the prior holding in this
litigation, but instead asks the Court to equitably toll a deadline
already rejected in a prior ruling. But no exception for equitable
tolling applies, and the Court follows the law of the case.
Potential plaintiffs with stricken consent-to-sue forms may re-file
as part of the Plaintiff's now-granted nationwide conditional
certification, assuming their claims are timely.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Lerner concludes that the Plaintiff
is entitled to issue notice for a nationwide collective action, and
the parties can move forward in discovery to the next stage of
conditional certification.

Judge Lerner grants the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Nationwide
Conditional Certification and the Plaintiff's request for
nationwide opt-in consents to ACCs who worked in the last three
years. She directs the Government to produce mail and email contact
information for all ACCs who worked at VCS canteens in the past
three years. She also directs the parties to file a joint status
report with a revised proposed notice and proposed schedule for
future proceedings by Jan. 9, 2023.

Judge Lerner denies the Plaintiff's request for equitable tolling
of the statute of limitations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 2, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/42b5w33k from Leagle.com.

Walt Pennington -- calbar@pennfirm.com -- San Diego, CA, for the
Plaintiff.

Rafique Anderson -- rafique.anderson@Howard.edu -- Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the
Defendant.


UNITED STATES: Court Grants Wolfing Leave to File Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRADLEY T. WOLFING, et al., Plaintiffs, RICHARD G.
GULLEY, et al., Consolidated Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES,
Defendant, Case Nos. 18-523C, 21-1825C (Fed. Cl.), Judge Armando
Bonilla of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims:

   a. grants the Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Leave to File an
      Amended Complaint;

   b. grants the Defendant's Motion for a Second Voluntary Remand
      to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records
      (ABCMR); and

   c. remands the military pay case to the Secretary of the Army
      and the ABCMR.

The origins of the United States Army Reserve (USAR) date back over
100 years to the passage of the 1920 amendments to the National
Defense Act of 1916. Today, nearly 190,000 soldiers serve in the
USAR, residing in all 50 states and five United States territories
and deployed to 23 countries around the world. Despite providing
nearly half of the Army's maneuver support and a quarter of its
force mobilization capacity, the USAR accounts for only 6% of the
total Army budget. This military pay case addresses the statutory
and regulatory issues governing the claimed entitlement to dual
housing allowances by members of the USAR during periods of
mobilization and deployment.

The Plaintiffs are current, retired, and former members of the USAR
and the Army National Guard (ARNG) residing in various states
throughout the continental United States. At some point, each
Plaintiff was called to active duty and deployed overseas in
support of contingency operations (CONOPS) and/or for Active Duty
Operational Support (ADOS) for periods exceeding 30 days. The
Plaintiffs' overseas primary duty stations (PDS) were not located
near the domestic primary residences from which they were
activated. Critical to the legal issues presented, their
mobilization and deployment orders did not provide for military
quarters at or near their overseas PDS, requiring them to secure
their own housing; nor did their CONOPS or ADOS orders authorize
the transportation of household goods from their primary residences
to their PDS at government expense. Mobilization and deployment
orders for reservists with dependents further did not authorize the
relocation of the members' dependents to the members' PDS at
government expense.

During their periods of deployment, each Plaintiff requested two
housing allowances from the Army: a basic allowance for housing
(BAH) to maintain their primary (domestic) residence and an
overseas housing allowance (OHA) to subsidize their PDS off-base
housing. Unlike active duty service members, reservists generally
return to their primary residences at the conclusion of their
deployments to resume their civilian lives and part-time military
duties. For nine (of the 11) the Plaintiffs, the Army initially
approved the requested dual housing allowances and remitted monthly
BAH and OHA payments.

In October 2016, the U.S. Army Garrison Wiesbaden Finance Office
identified approximately 140 USAR and National Guard members
suspected of collecting excessive or unauthorized dual housing
allowances and forwarded its findings to the Army Criminal
Investigation Division (Army CID). Army CID, in turn, initiated
criminal investigations of the identified service members-including
six (of the nine) plaintiffs receiving both BAH and OHA-for alleged
housing allowance fraud, theft, and/or larceny. In Major Copas'
case, court-martial proceedings were commenced.

At the conclusion of the investigations, the six Plaintiffs under
investigation by Army CID received General Officer Memoranda of
Reprimand (GOMOR) from the Commanding General. All nine Plaintiffs
receiving BAH and OHA payments were ordered to repay the Army
between $5,500 and $136,000, of which six Plaintiffs were subject
to wage garnishments between $5,500 and $30,000, and an overlapping
six plaintiffs forfeited BAH on their primary residences ranging
from $12,500 and $30,000. As for the two Plaintiffs who were not
initially approved for dual housing allowances, Major Walters was
instructed to elect either BAH or OHA, and Major Erickson was
authorized to receive only BAH.

After a subset of Plaintiffs pursued relief through their
respective chains of command and administrative channels with
limited success,6 on April 9, 2018, seven Plaintiffs commenced this
action by filing the Wolfing complaint. Thereafter, on Sept. 9,
2021, two additional Plaintiffs (now four) filed the related Gulley
complaint. In both actions, the named Plaintiffs seek to certify
classes of similarly situated USAR members.

In the interim, on Aug. 29, 2019, the Court denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Wolfing complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United
States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC); concomitantly, the Court
granted defendant's motion for a voluntary remand to the ABCMR --
Wolfing v. United States, 144 Fed. Cl. 516 (2019) (Wolfing I).

On Aug. 10, 2021, the ABCMR issued separate decisions granting
administrative relief to the seven Wolfing Plaintiffs.
Specifically, the Board found the USAR members were authorized to
receive dual housing allowances and, consequently, directed that
the members' military records be corrected to reflect their
entitlement to: both BAH (for their primary residences) and OHA
(for their PDS off-base housing during periods of overseas
deployment); the refund of any garnishments; payment of any housing
allowances forfeited; expunge of all adverse information related to
the Army's investigations into the alleged overpayments; and the
convening of special selection boards (SSBs) for any plaintiffs
non-selected for promotion during which time adverse information
(now-purged) was included in their military personnel records. On
Aug. 27, 2021, the Secretary of the Army formally approved the
ABCMR's recommendations. The Army then transmitted the Wolfing
plaintiffs' corrected military records to the Department of
Defense, Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), for
evaluation, processing, and payment of backpay due.10

On Jan. 27, 2022, DFAS issued a memorandum concluding that, based
upon the factual records presented, none of the Wolfing Plaintiffs
save Major Morelli were entitled to the contested secondary housing
allowances.

Pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion for a second
voluntary remand to the ABCMR to determine: whether the relief
awarded Major Morelli during the initial remand constituted an
appropriate exercise of discretion by the Secretary of the Army;
and whether the six Wolfing Plaintiffs with dependents are
statutorily permitted to receive FSH-O for some or all of their
periods of overseas deployment (i.e., whether they and their
dependents were in fact separated during the deployment).
Concomitantly, the Defendant seeks to have the ABCMR assess whether
the military records of the four Gulley plaintiffs and the 22 newly
joined plaintiffs-with and without dependents-should be corrected
to reflect their entitlement and award of dual housing allowances:
BAH and OHA for service members without dependents, and BAH and
FSH-O for service members with dependents.

In turn, the Plaintiffs seek to file an amended complaint to assert
an alternative theory of monetary relief for service members with
dependents that were deemed ineligible (in whole or in part) to
recover OHA or the equivalent FSH-O. They proffered alternative
theory is based on the Travel and Transportation Allowances (Per
Diem) statute, 37 U.S.C. Section 474 (2016) (repealed and
recodified at 37 U.S.C. Section 452 (2021)), and the implementing
United States Department of Defense (DOD) regulations.

The parties agree a second remand is warranted to address the
issues outlined. So does Judge Bonilla. In addressing reservists
with the dependents' entitlement to FSH-O, the Secretary of the
Army should also consider whether a dependent residency waiver is
appropriate given the general need for reservists to return to
their primary residence following their deployment.

Judge Bonilla resolves the contested statutory and regulatory
issues governing reservists' housing allowance entitlements during
periods of deployment. He finds that (i) the DOD Joint Travel
Regulations provide another means by which a service member's BAH
or OHA rate may be based on a location other than their PDS; (ii)
reservists who need to maintain two residences are entitled to the
same or even a lesser housing allowance than similarly situated
reservists who need to maintain only one; (iii) the complex
statutory and regulatory scheme at play in the case warrant more
extensive analysis of the Plaintiffs' proffered alternative theory
of recovery; and (iv) reservists with dependents should be afforded
the opportunity to address the potential merits of any analogous
application or extension of DOD's expressed understanding and
implementation.

Judge Bonilla further finds that (i) the ABCMR will immediately
seek an advisory opinion from the DOD Office of Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs addressing the
discretion vested in the Secretary of the Army to grant dual
housing allowances under 37 U.S.C. Section 403(g) and the
implementing DOD regulations; and (ii) the ABCMR will complete its
review and assessment within 180 days of this decision, subject to
extension as provided in RCFC 52.2(c).

For these reasons, Judge Bonilla grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
file an amended complaint to assert an alternative theory of
monetary relief and the Defendant's motion to remand the matter to
the ABCM with the instructions specified in his Opinion and Order.
He deems the Plaintiffs' proffered Amended Complaint filed by leave
of the Court.

Pursuant to RCFC 52.2(a), the military pay case is remanded to the
Secretary of the Army and the ABCMR to consider whether the
Plaintiffs are entitled or otherwise authorized and approved to
receive housing allowances or other subsidies consistent with the
Opinion and Order as well as other relief specified therein.

During the requested remand:

      a. Pursuant to RCFC 52.2(b)(1)(A):

            i. Within 10 days of this Opinion and Order, the ABCMR
will request an advisory opinion from the DOD Office of Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs addressing
the discretion vested in the Secretary of the Army to grant dual
housing allowances under 37 U.S.C. Section 403(g) and implementing
DOD regulations. To the extent the DOD is of the opinion the
Secretary lacks such authority, or that the discretion has evolved
since the passage of Section 403(g)-and, more particularly, between
October 2016 and the present-the advisory opinion must include a
timeline of the evolution of the nature and scope of the discretion
vested in the Secretary of the Army and the basis for the opined
evolution.

            ii. Within 10 days of the Opinion and Order, the ABCMR
will request an advisory opinion from the Defense Human Resources
Activity (DHRA) on whether per diem is (or was) authorized for
reserve component members while serving on active duty under the
Travel and Transportation Allowances statute, 37 U.S.C. Section 474
(2016) (repealed and recodified at 37 U.S.C. Section 452 (2021)),
and the implementing DOD regulations. To the extent the DHRA is of
the opinion that the authorization evolved between October 2016 and
the present, the advisory opinion must include a timeline of the
evolution of the per diem authorization and the basis for the
opined evolution.

            iii. Within 60 days of the Opinion and Order, the
Plaintiffs and any similarly affected reservists seeking
administrative relief will begin submitting applications to the
ABCMR specifying the relief they seek under the Court's decision as
well as the factual basis for their claimed entitlement and
eligibility.

            iv. Absent good cause, the Plaintiffs and any similarly
affected reservists seeking administrative relief will respond to
the Board's requests for relevant information within 30 days of
such requests.

      b. Pursuant to RCFC 52.2(b)(1)(B), the ABCMR will complete
its review within 180 days.

      c. Pursuant to RCFC 52.2(b)(1)(C), the Clerk is directed to
stay all proceedings in the matter until further order of the
Court. The Court will retain jurisdiction over the case during the
remand period.

      d. Pursuant to RCFC 52.2(b)(1)(D), the Defendant will FILE a
Status Report every 90 days during the remand period updating the
Court on the status of the remand proceedings.

      e. During the remand period, by consent, the Plaintiffs'
request for leave to file successive amended complaints joining
additional (similarly situated) plaintiffs is granted.

      f. Pursuant to RCFC 52.2(d), within 30 days of the conclusion
of the voluntary remand proceedings before the ABCMR, the ABCMR
will send the Court the required copies of the final decision(s)
reached by the Board.

      g. Pursuant to RCFC 52.2(e)(1), the parties will FILE a Joint
Status Report within 30 days of the filing of the ABCMR's final
decision(s) or other action on remand setting forth the parties'
position(s) regarding whether further litigation of this matter is
necessary. If requesting further proceedings from the Court, then
the parties will include a proposed schedule to govern the case
going forward.

The Clerk will serve a copy of the Order to the Secretary of the
Army and the ABCMR: Hon. Christine Wormuth Secretary of the Army
Office of the Secretary of the Army 101 Army Pentagon Washington,
DC 20310-0101 and Dennis W. Dingle Director, Army Board for the
Correction of Military Records Army Review Board Agency 251 18th
Street South - Suite 385 Arlington, VA 22202-3531

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 2, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdf78fsy from Leagle.com.

Patrick J. Hughes, Patriots Law Group of Lyons & Hughes, P.C.,
Suitland, MD, for plaintiffs. Michael E. Lyons, Patriots Law Group
of Lyons & Hughes, P.C., Suitland, MD, Of Counsel.

Douglas G. Edelschick, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC,
for defendant, with whom on the briefs were Brian M. Boynton,
Assistant Attorney General, and Patricia M. McCarthy, Director,
Douglas K. Mickle, Assistant Director, and Kyle S. Beckrich, Trial
Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Major Alane E. Ballweg and
Christopher C. Cox, Litigation Attorneys, U.S. Army Legal Service
Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA, Of Counsel.


VIVENDI TICKETING: Carter Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivendi Ticketing US
LLC. The case is styled as Jennifer Carter, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Vivendi Ticketing US LLC doing
business as: See Tickets, Case No. 8:22-cv-01981-CJC-DFM (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 27, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated Other Personal Property for Personal
Injury.

Vivendi Ticketing US LLC doing business as See Tickets --
https://www.seetickets.com/ -- is the trading name of an
international ticketing services company owned by Vivendi SA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Wren Czaplak, Esq.
          PRECEPT GROUP, LLP
          8030 La Mesa Boulevard Suite 268
          La Mesa, CA 91942
          Phone: (619) 354-4434
          Fax: (866) 265-7238
          Email: chris@precept.co

               - and -

          Mason A. Barney, Esq.
          SIRI AND GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: (212) 532-1091
          Fax: (646) 417-5967
          Email: mbarney@sirillp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jacob Marcus Heath, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1000 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
          Phone: (650) 614-7400
          Fax: 650-7401
          Email: jheath@orrick.com


WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Bansal Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Franklin S. Bansal, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., WALMART
INC. and DOES 1 through 25, Case No. 22CV1932-BEN-DDL was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on Dec. 7, 2022, and assigned Case No.
3:22-cv-01910-H-DEB.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants "violated Labor Code section
204 because they failed to timely pay Plaintiff and Class Members
all earned wages. By way of example, by underpaying sick pay wages,
the Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive all of their wages
in a timely matter. In fact, upon information and belief, the sick
pay wages that Defendants underpaid, remain unpaid and due."[BN]

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
          Phone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          Email: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
          Alis Moon, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
          695 Town Center Drive
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 714-800-7900
          Facsimile: 714-754-1298
          Email: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com
                 alis.moon@ogletree.com

WALMART INC: Sepulveda Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Oralia Sepulveda, individually and on behalf
of other persons similarly situated v. WALMART INC., an active
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
30-2022-01278658-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Dec. 7, 2022, and assigned Case No.
8:22-cv-02195-JWH-ADS.

The Plaintiff brings the following causes of action on behalf of
herself and the putative class members: failure to provide meal
periods; failure to provide 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 (8) unfair business practices.[BN]

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
          Phone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          Email: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
          Alis Moon, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
          695 Town Center Drive
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 714-800-7900
          Facsimile: 714-754-1298
          Email: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com
                 alis.moon@ogletree.com

WALMART INC: Stockwell Files Suit in S.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart Inc. The case
is styled as Mildred Stockwell, Penny Weber, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., Case
No. 3:22-cv-02509-DWD (S.D. Ill., Oct. 28, 2022).

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

Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan O'Connor, IV, Esq.
          WHITESIDE & GOLDBERG, LTD.
          155 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 540
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 334-6875
          Fax: (800) 334-6034
          Email: boconnor@wglawgroup.com

WEB TO DOOR CORP: Arocha Sues Over FCRA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Arocha, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WEB TO DOOR CORP., a Nevada corporation; SOUTH EAST
PERSONNEL LEASING, INC., a Florida corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 4:22-cv-06851-YGR (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022), is
brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

When Plaintiff applied for employment with the Defendant, the
Defendants provided a disclosure and authorization form to perform
a background investigation. The disclosures provided by the
Defendants contained extraneous and superfluous language that does
not consist solely of the disclosure as required by the FCRA and/or
is not clear and conspicuous.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants routinely acquire
consumer reports to conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and
other prospective, current, and former employees and use
information from consumer reports in connection with their hiring
process without providing proper disclosures and without obtaining
proper authorization in compliance with the law. The Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
current, former, and prospective employees, seeks statutory
penalties due to Defendants' systematic and willful violations of
the FCRA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in the State of
California.

WEB TO DOOR CORP. is a Nevada corporation and does business in the
State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr., Esq.
          Maxim Gorbunov, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109
          Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                 jose@setarehlaw.com
                 maxim@setarehlaw.com


YAZAM INC: Woodford Files Suit in D. Columbia
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yazam, Inc. The case
is styled as Alicia Woodford, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Yazam, Inc., d/b/a Empower, Case No.
1:22-cv-03665 (D.D.C., Dec. 7, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Auto Negligence.

Yazam -- http://www.yazam.com/-- provides seed-stage funding and
business development services to emerging Internet and technology
start-ups..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Michael Regan, Esq.
          REGAN ZAMBRI & LONG, PLLC
          1919 M Street, NW, Suite 350
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 463-3030
          Fax: (202) 463-0667
          Email: pregan@reganfirm.com


ZUORA INC: Continues to Defend Two Putative Securities Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zuora Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 8, 2022, that the Company continues
to defend itself from two putative securities class suits in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo.

In April and May 2020, two putative securities class action
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants Zuora and
certain of its current and former officers, its directors and the
underwriters of Zuora's initial public offering (IPO).

The complaints purport to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Zuora's securities pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with Zuora's IPO and allege claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The suits seek unspecified damages and other relief. In July 2020,
the court entered an order consolidating the two lawsuits, and the
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting
the same claims.

In October 2020, the court denied defendants' demurrer as to the
Section 11 and Section 15 claims and granted the demurrer as to the
Section 12(a)(2) claim with leave to file an amended complaint.

In November 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint. Defendants' demurrer to the Section 12(a)(2) claim was
sustained with leave to amend.

In October 2021, the court certified a class for the Section 11 and
Section 15 claims, consisting of persons and entities who purchased
or acquired Zuora common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
Zuora's IPO.

The lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Section 12(a)(2)
claim without prejudice.

Discovery in this case is ongoing.

Given the procedural posture and the nature of such litigation
matters, the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.


Zuora Inc. provides a cloud-based subscription management platform
based in California.

ZUORA INC: Stockholder Suit in Northern California Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Zuora Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 8, 2022, that the  Stockholder
derivative suit is stayed in the Northern District of California.

In May 2022, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
certain of Zuora's directors and executive officers and naming
Zuora as a nominal defendant.

The derivative action alleges claims based on events similar to
those in the securities class actions and asserts causes of action
against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and contribution.

Plaintiff seeks corporate reforms, unspecified damages and
restitution, and fees and costs.

This suit is currently stayed.

Zuora Inc. provides a cloud-based subscription management platform
based in California.

ZUORA INC: Trial in Securities Suit to Start May 2023
-----------------------------------------------------
Zuora Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 8, 2022, that the Securities class
suit trial is set to start in May 2023.

In June 2019, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming Zuora and certain of its officers as defendants.

The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Zuora's securities between April
12, 2018 and May 30, 2019.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements about Zuora's business, operations and prospects in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, fees and costs.

In November 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting the same claims.

In April 2020, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.

On March 15, 2021, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify
a class consisting of persons and entities who purchased or
acquired Zuora common stock between April 12, 2018 and May 30, 2019
and who were allegedly damaged thereby.

Discovery in this case concluded in October 2022. A hearing on
summary judgment motions, which have yet to be filed, is currently
scheduled for March 2023 and trial is currently set to begin in May
2023.

Zuora Inc. provides a cloud-based subscription management platform
based in California.


ZUORA INC: Two Stockholder Derivative Suits Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Zuora Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 8, 2022, that the two stockholder
derivative suits are stayed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

In September 2019, two stockholder derivative lawsuits were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against certain of Zuora's directors and executive officers and
naming Zuora as a nominal defendant. The derivative actions allege
claims based on events similar to those in the securities class
actions and assert causes of action against the individual
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste
of corporate assets, and for making false and misleading statements
about Zuora's business, operations, and prospects in violation of
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs seek corporate reforms, unspecified damages and
restitution, and fees and costs.

In November 2019, the stockholder derivative lawsuits, which are
related to the federal securities class action, were assigned to
the same judge who is overseeing the federal securities class
action lawsuit.

In February 2020, the court entered an order consolidating the two
derivative lawsuits, and in March 2022, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint.

In May and June 2020, two stockholder derivative lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
against certain of Zuora's directors and current and former
executive officers.

The derivative actions allege claims based on events similar to
those in the securities class actions and the derivative actions
pending in the Northern District of California and assert causes of
action against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, contribution,
and for making false and misleading statements about Zuora's
business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 14(a)
of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiff seeks corporate reforms, unspecified damages and
restitution, and fees and costs.

In June 2020, the court entered an order consolidating the two
District of Delaware derivative lawsuits.

The suits are currently stayed.

Zuora Inc. provides a cloud-based subscription management platform
based in California.


                            *********

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 ***