/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221226.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, December 26, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 251

                            Headlines

ACCEPTANCE NOW: McBurnie, et al., Seek to Certify Class
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Court Modifies Scheduling Order Deadlines
ANALOG DEVICES INC: Faces Securities Ryan Suit Over Merger Deal
ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Hypertension Meds
ARGO GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Exchange Act Violations

ARQIT QUANTUM: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suit in New York
ASPEN GROUP INC: Arizona Consumer Fraud Class Suit Pending
BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: More Time for Class Cert Filings Sought
BEVERAGE MARKETING: Parties Fail to Provide Details of Discovery
BHP BILLINGTON: Pennington Seeks to Place Exhibits Under Seal

BHP BILLITON: Pennington Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal
BRIGHT SOLAR: Mag. Judge's Nov. 29 Discovery Order Partly Stayed
BRISTOL BAY: Awmagan, et al., Bid for Class Certification Nixed
CBDMD INC: Davis Collective and Class Action Suit Stayed
CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Faces McCallion Suit Over SEC Filing Delay

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Fox Allowed Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal
CLEANSPARK INC: Continues to Defend Bishins Class Suit
CORE SCIENTIFIC: Faces Peng Suit Over Non-Disclosure
CREDIT SUISSE: Third Amended Civil CMP, Sched Order Entered
DELTA STAR: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Extended to August 28, 2023

DELTA STAR: Extension of Class Cert. Filing Sought
DIGITAL REALTY: Seeks to Seal Portions of Counterclaim
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Faces Labor Suit in California Court
ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER: Settlement Deal in Kain Gets Initial OK
ENBRIDGE INC: Court Junks Proposed Scheduling Order in BHK Suit

ENVESTNET INC: Faces Wesch Securities Class Suit
ERICO INT'L: Parties Seek Certification of Settlement Class
ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend Illegal Fees Class Suit
ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend Sherman Act Class Suit
FIRST SAVINGS: Verbal Deal w/ Customer Fees Suit Claimants Reached

FORD MOTOR: Bid to Transfer Venue in Garrison Builders Suit Denied
FRITO-LAY INC: Addison Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
FRONTLINE ASSET: Henry Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
FRY POWERS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Jefferson Seeks Extension to File Reply

GEO SECURE: Bid to Certify Class Must be Filed by March 3, 2023
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Order Setting Class Cert Deadlines Entered
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Parties Seek to Withdraw Documents
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Conditional Status of FLSA Collective Sought
GOOGLE LLC: Wins Summary Judgment in Brown Data Collection Suit

GOOGLE LLC: Wins Summary Judgment in Calhoun Data Collection Suit
GOYA FOODS: Seeks Approval of Pre-Certification Communications
GREAT AMERICAN: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Feb. 24, 2023
GREENWICH VILLAGE: Order Regarding Class Cert Deadlines Entered
GREG LINDBERG: Loses Bid to Junk Jordan Suit

HANES BRANDS: Faces Toussaint Securities Class Suit
HANESBRANDS INC: Faces Ramon Class Action
HID GLOBAL: Cooper Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Whatley FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
INDEPENDENT BANK: Grice Files Bid for Class Certification

INSOURCECODE LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JACK SKEEN: More Time to File Responses to Certify Class Sought
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Erickson Seeks to Certify Stockholder Class
JVK OPERATIONS: Order on Class Certification Briefing Entered
KC GOURMET: Order on General Pretrial Management Entered

LABORATORY CORPORATION: Aguilar FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
LINDE GAS: Class Cert-Related Order Entered in Mountain Hi Suit
LLOYD AUSTIN: Allowed Leave to Combine Response & Class Bids
LOS ANGELES, CA: Millstein Seeks to Certify FLSA Classes
LYFT INC: Order Regarding Class Certification Deadlines Entered

MARSHALL HOTELS: Class Cert Status Report Granted in Part
MASTER LOCK: Pan Sues Over Falsely Claimed Secure Lock Boxes
MATRIX ABSENCE: Heckle Files Bid for Class Certification
MATT MARTORELLO: Duggan Seeks to Certify MA Consumer Class
MAYVENN INC: Court Junks Class Certification in Trim TCPA Suit

MEDICUS HEALTHCARE: Seeks More Time to Object to Conditional Cert
MILLIMAN INC: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines in Mattson
MY PILLOW: Gaudreau Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
MYXED UP: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Loadholt Class Suit
NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC: Proposed Sched Order Junked in Johnson

NIO INC: S.D. New York Consolidates Saye & Bohonok Securities Suits
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Continues to Defend Darish and Hymowitz Suits
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Continues to Defend Haddad Shareholder Class Suit
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Continues to Defend Woo Shareholder Class Suit
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Pirzada Bid to Discontinue Claim OK'd

NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Villafan, et al., Seek to Certify Class
NOVAVAX INC: Faces Sinnathurai Securities Suit Over COVID Vaccine
OUR DREAM PIZZA: Powell Seeks to Certify Delivery Driver Class
PACIFIC GRAIN: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to April 19, 2023
PAPA JOHN'S: Curd Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Communications

PASSON & PASSON: King, et al., Seek Conditional Collective Status
PAUL MOSS INSURANCE: Pavelka Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
PERDUE FARMS: Court Narrows Claims in Parker Suit
PERFORMANCE ONE: Bid for Collective Action Cert Tossed as Premature
PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: More Time to File Class Cert Bids Sought

POINTSBET USA: Seeks Dismissal of Gutman Class Action
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Pazymino Suit
PP&G INC: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Denied as Moot
PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON: Scheduling Order, Discovery Plan Entered
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Class Cert Related Order Entered in Volino

PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Bid to Seal Portions of Exhibits OK'd
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parties Seek to File New Class Cert Exhibit
RCI HOSPITALITY: Class Suit Concludes Due to Absence of Appeal
RCI HOSPITALITY: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit
RECRUITGIGS LLC: Soriano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

RINGCENTRAL INC: Faces Reuben Suit Over Violation of Privacy Act
RIPPLE LABS: OK of Stipulation Modifying Class Cert Briefing Sought
RIPPLE LABS: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule
RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Fox Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal
ROB BONTA: Welchen Files Renewed Bid for Class Certification

ROBLOX CORP: Matlick Files Shareholder Suit in California Court
ROCK PIERCE: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Sur-Reply in Rowan
ROLLS-ROYCE MARINE: Case Management Order Entered in Bruner Suit
SAKS FIFTH: General Pretrial Management Entered in Henderson
SHELBY COUNTY, TN: Denial of Consent Decree Termination Affirmed

STRATA SKIN SCIENCES: Faces Labor Suit in California Court
SUNPATH LTD.: Smith TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
SYMETRA LIFE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Davis Suit
TCP HOT: Rider to Class Settlement Deal in Delcid Initially OK'd
TEAM ENTERPRISES: Cipolla Seeks OK of Renewed Class Status Bid

TG THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit Over Leukemia Meds
THOMSON REUTERS: Brooks, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
TRANS UNION: Class Cert. Bids Must be Filed by February 15, 2024
TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Phang Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass
TRUE STAR: Stipulation on Class Certification OK'd in Donica

ULTIMATE CARE: Cruz Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
UMB BANK: Case Management Order Entered in Island Farm Suit
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Court Sets Class Cert Deadlnes in Brown
VI-JON LLC: 9th Cir. Partly Reverses Dismissal of Moreno Class Suit
VI-JON LLC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Sur-Reply

VXL ENT: Order Granting Proposed Amended Case Management Entered
WEBER INC: Faces IPO-Related Purported Class Suit in Illinois
WELLS FARGO: Summary Judgment Bid in Droesch Suit Granted in Part
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Class Cert Briefing Sched Extension Sought
XANADU MARKETING: Hall's Bid to Stay Class Cert. Deadline Granted


                            *********

ACCEPTANCE NOW: McBurnie, et al., Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON McBURNIE and APRIL
SPRUELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ACCEPTANCE NOW, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01429-JD (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3);

      "all individuals who entered into a RentalPurchase
      Agreement with RAC in California at any time between
      December 11, 2016, and June 30, 2021 (when RAC stopped
      staffing retail store locations in California) and who
      were charged a Processing Fee and/or an Expedited Payment
      Fee;"

   2. appointing Shannon McBurnie and April Spruell (and, if
      necessary, Zachary Livingston and Maria Vazquez) as class
      representatives; and

   3. appointing Dostart Hannink LLP and Altshuler Berzon LLP as
      class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

The Plaintiffs seek to pursue class claims for violations of
California's Karnette Rental-Purchase Act, Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, and Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiffs' class claims against RAC Acceptance East arises
from RAC's practice of charging its California customers unlawful
"processing" and "expedited payment" fees on top of its already
exorbitant pricing for long-term rentals of household goods.

The Plaintiffs contend that RAC violated the Karnette Act's
prohibition against mandating fees that exceed the rent-to-own
company's "actual cost incurred" or that are not "reasonable,"
because it included provisions in every RPA executed by a
California class member during the class period that imposed

   -- (1) a $45 Processing Fee, which RAC charged to each
          California customer who entered into an RPA, and

      (2) a $1.99 Expedited Payment Fee (i.e., a telephonic
          payment fee, also known within RAC as a "Convenience
          Fee"), which it charged to each California customer
          every time the customer made a payment by telephone,
          rather than at a store or online.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YG0spV
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James T. Hannink, Esq.
          Zach P. Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART HANNINK LLP
          4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
          La Jolla, CA 92037-1484
          Telephone: (858) 623-4200
          Facsimile: (858) 623-4299
          E-mail: jhannink@sdlaw.com
                  zdostart@sdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          Connie K. Chan, Esq.
          Christine M. Salazar, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: mrubin@altber.com
                  cchan@altber.com
                  csalazar@altber.com

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Court Modifies Scheduling Order Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Qureshi v. AMERICAN
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01141 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge entered
an order modifying scheduling order deadlines as follows:

  -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for           March 2, 2023
     Class Certification is due:

  -- The Plaintiffs' Class and            March 2, 2023
     Merits Expert Disclosures
     are due:

  -- The Defendant's Class and            April 3, 2023
     Merits Expert Disclosures
     are due:

  -- The Defendant's Opposition           May 1, 2023
     to Plaintiffs' Class
     Certification Motion is due:

  -- The Plaintiffs' Reply in             June 12, 2023
     Support of Class Certification
     is due:

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.[CC]


ANALOG DEVICES INC: Faces Securities Ryan Suit Over Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Analog Devices, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended October 29, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 22, 2022, that on March 17, 2022,
Walter E. Ryan and Ryan Asset Management, LLC, purported
stockholders of its affiliate Maxim Integrated, filed a putative
class action in the court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(C.A. No. 2022—0255) against the company and the former directors
of Maxim.

The complaint alleges a breach of fiduciary duties by the
individual defendants in connection with Maxim's agreement, as part
of the merger negotiations with the company, to suspend Maxim
dividends for up to four quarters prior to the closing of the
Acquisition. The complaint further alleges that the company aided
and abetted that alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs
seek damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plaintiffs'
costs, and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees, costs, and other expenses.

Analog Devices, Inc. is a semiconductor company based in
Massachusetts.


ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Hypertension Meds
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that on
December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the
Company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect
purchasers of the drug "Bystolic."

On December 23, 2020, six individual purchasers of Bystolic, CVS,
Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger, Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed complaints
against the Company. On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs in these
actions filed amended complaints. All amended complaints are
substantively identical.  

The plaintiffs in these actions allege that beginning in 2012,
Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into
anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related
to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version
of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen,
Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors,
subsidiaries, and affiliates.

ANI itself was not a party to patent litigation with Forest
concerning Bystolic and did not settle patent litigation with
Forest. The plaintiffs named the Company as a defendant based on
the Company’s January 8, 2020, Asset Purchase Agreement with
Amerigen. The complaints alleged that the 2013 patent litigation
settlement agreement between Forest and Amerigen violated federal
and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by
delaying the market entry of generic versions of Bystolic.
Plaintiffs alleged they paid higher prices as a result of delayed
generic competition.

Plaintiffs sought damages, trebled or otherwise multiplied under
applicable law, injunctive relief, litigation costs, and
attorneys’ fees. The complaints did not specify the amount of
damages sought from the Company or other defendants and the Company
at this early stage of the litigation cannot reasonably estimate
the potential damages that the plaintiffs will seek. The cases have
been consolidated in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York as "In re Bystolic Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 20-cv-005735 (LJL)."

On April 23, 2021, the Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaints. On January 24, 2022, the court
dismissed all claims brought by the plaintiffs without prejudice.
The court granted the plaintiffs until February 22, 2022, to file
amended complaints, which were filed in federal court in the
Southern District of New York, on that date. The newly amended
complaints contain substantially similar claims.

On April 19, 2022, the Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the newly amended complaints. On May 23, 2022, the
plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss and, on June
24, 2022, the Company and other defendants filed replies to those
oppositions. The motions to dismiss are now fully briefed and
pending with the court.

ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries are a
biopharmaceutical company based in Minnesota.


ARGO GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Exchange Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022,
that on October 20, 2022, a securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers, alleging securities fraud violations under
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff alleges that from February 13, 2018 through August 9,
2022, Defendants made false and misleading statements concerning
the company's reserves and underwriting standards.

Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. is an insurance company
based in Bermuda.


ARQIT QUANTUM: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Arqit Quantum Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a putative class suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The Company is aware that on or around May 6, 2022, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed against Arqit and certain of
Arqit’s directors in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Case No. 1:22-cv-02604), asserting
violations of federal securities laws under Sections 10(b), 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (the "Complaint").

The Complaint generally alleges that Arqit and individual
defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating
to Arqit's business prospects and projections.

The Company has never been served with the Complaint, and has no
knowledge as to whether the lawsuit will proceed.

However, Arqit intends to vigorously defend against these claims
should the Complaint proceed.

Arqit Quantum Inc. is a software company that supplies a unique
quantum encryption Platform-as-a-Service which makes the
communications links of any networked device secure against current
and future forms of attack

ASPEN GROUP INC: Arizona Consumer Fraud Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Aspen Group 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 15, 2022, that the Arizona
Consumer Fraud class suit is pending in the Arizona Superior
Court.

On April 6, 2022, Aspen University was served with a class action
claim in Arizona Superior Court, alleging violations of the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act and Unjust Enrichment, based on the class
representative's claims that Aspen University misstated the quality
of its pre-licensure nursing program. This complaint was likely in
response to the Arizona Board of Nursing actions against Aspen
University relating to the program, as outlined below.

At this time, the only action taken by Aspen University was to file
for change of venue which was granted. The size of the potential
class action claim is not yet known.

Aspen Group, Inc. is an education technology holding company based
in New York.


BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: More Time for Class Cert Filings Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM JAMES GRIFFIN, et
al. v. BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al., Case No.
0:20-cv-62371-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order:

   a. Granting Defendant Benefytt's Unopposed Motion For
      Extension Of Time For Class Certification Filings;

   b. Enlarging the time period for all class certification
      filing deadlines by 30-days; and

   c. Issuing such other and further relief as the Court deems
      just and proper.

The Plaintiffs William James Griffin, Vicki Needham, Ashley Lawley,
Sandra Wilson and William "Jeff" Cooper and Defendant Assurance IQ
do not oppose this motion.

On November 28, 2022, the Court issued an Order on the parties'
Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time and Page Limits for Class
Certification Filings.

However, despite good faith efforts by Plaintiffs and Benefytt to
schedule the depositions and to ensure the availability of the
witnesses and counsel, due to the unavailability of Benefytt
witnesses and counsel, Plaintiffs' noticed depositions of Benefytt
will not be able to occur prior to December 30, 2022.

The parties do not dispute that, at a minimum, the 30(b)(6)
deposition of Benefytt should occur prior to Plaintiffs moving for
class certification. THe Plaintiffs' position is that it would be
severely prejudicial to file a motion for class certification prior
to taking this deposition testimony.

Benefytt Technologies operates health insurance marketplaces,
agency technology systems, and administration platforms.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jcYr4g at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Nicholas Dorman, Esq.
          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          W. Tucker Brown, Esq.
          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          2001 Park Place North
          1000 Park Place Tower
          P.O. Box 10968
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 488-1200
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: ndorman@whatleykallas.com
                  jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
                  tbrown@whatleykallas.com
                  psheehan@whatleykallas.com

                - and -

          F. Inge Johnstone, Esq.
          Matthew F. Carroll, Esq.
          JOHNSTONE CARROLL, LLC
          2204 Lakeshore Drive Suite 303
          Homewood, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 383-1809
          Facsimile: (888) 759-3882
          E-mail: ijohnstone@johnstonecarroll.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Val Leppert, Esq.
          David L. Balser, Esq.
          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          Timothy H. Lee, Esq.
          Benjamin B. Watson, Esq.
          Spencer M. Diamond, Esq.
          Elliott Foote, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: vleppert@kslaw.com
                  dbalser@kslaw.com
                  zmcentyre@kslaw.com
                  tlee@kslaw.com
                  bwatson@kslaw.com
                  sdiamond@kslaw.com
                  efoote@kslaw.com

                - and -

          Catherine B. Schumacher, Esq.
          Vincent A. Sama, Esq.
          Daphne Morduchowitz, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          620 Eighth Avenue, 32 nd Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 218-3375
          E-mail: cshumacher@seyfarth.com
                  vsama@seyfarth.com
                  dmorduchowitz@seyfarth.com

                - and -

          Martha Rosa Mora, Esq.
          AVILA RODRIGUEZ HERNANDEZ
          MENA & FERRI
          2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard
          Penthouse 1225
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 779-3567
          Facsimile: (305) 779-3561
          E-mail: mmora@arhmf.com

BEVERAGE MARKETING: Parties Fail to Provide Details of Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Niles, et al v. Beverage
Marketing USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01902 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Lee G. Dunst entered an order on motion for extension of
time to complete discovery.

  -- The parties seek an extension of the class certification
     briefing and discovery schedule, but fail to provide any of
     detailed explanation or support for this request, in
     violation of the Individual Rules of Magistrate Judge Lee
     G. Dunst.

     If the parties seek to renew this application, they shall
     provide details about discovery conducted to date and what
     remains to be done.

The nature of suit Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal
Property Damage.

Beverage Marketing provides marketing services.[CC]




BHP BILLINGTON: Pennington Seeks to Place Exhibits Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN LARRY PENNINGTON, et
al, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Others Similarly
Situated v. BHP BILLINGTON PETROLEUM (FAYETTEVILLE) LLC, AND MMGJ
ARKANSAS UPSTREAM, LLC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00178-LPR (E.D. Ark.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order placing Exhibits 5,
10, 11 12, 13, and 14 to their forthcoming Motion for Class
Certification under seal.

The Plaintiffs are Dan Larry Pennington, Norma J. Bryant, and Aaron
Parish Black, which are trustee of the Ralph J. and Reba J. Family
Trust and the Reba J. Parish Trust.

The sealing of the confidential exhibits is necessary because the
exhibits contain proprietary information related to the Defendants'
and third-parties' business practices, trade secrets, and
contractual relationships which outweigh the public's right to
access said exhibits. the lawsuit says.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BEC2TH at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George A. Barton, Esq.
          Stacy A. Burrows, Esq.
          BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC
          5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
          Mission, KS 66205
          Telephone: (913) 563-6250
          E-mail: george@bartonburrows.com
                  stacy@bartonburrows.com

BHP BILLITON: Pennington Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pennington, et al., v. BHP
Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLC, et al., Case No. Lee P.
Rudofsky (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris
entered an order granting motion to seal.

  -- The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to place certain
     exhibits in support of their motion for class certification
     under seal is granted.

  -- The Plaintiffs may file Exhibits 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14
     under seal when they file their motion seeking class
     certification.

The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract.[CC]

BRIGHT SOLAR: Mag. Judge's Nov. 29 Discovery Order Partly Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOYD STEVE BALES, v.
BRIGHT SOLAR MARKETING LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00496-MMH-PRL (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Philip R. Lammens entered an order granting
Defendant's opposed motion to partially stay the Magistrate Judge's
November 29, 2022, Order ("discovery order") (Doc. 29), granting
Plaintiff's motion to compel.

The portion of the discovery order issued November 29, 2022,
compelling the defendant to produce consent records for the
putative class, is stayed pending the District Court's rulings on
the defendant's objections.

If the District Court agrees with the discovery order, the
defendant will have fourteen days after the issuance of the
District Court's order to produce the consent records at issue.

The Defendant moves to stay its obligation to comply with the
portion of the discovery order requiring it to produce "consent
records for all putative class members" until 14 days after the
District Court resolves its objections as filed under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72(a).

The Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition. However,
given that Defendant filed the motion on December 7, 2022, and the
discovery order requires production of the consent records by
December 9th, the Court considered the motion and grants it out of
an abundance of caution.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hvzSit at no extra charge.[CC]


BRISTOL BAY: Awmagan, et al., Bid for Class Certification Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Awmagan, et al., v.
Bristol Bay Native Corp. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01700-JO-AGS
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jinsook Ohta entered an order denying
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and staying action
for 30 days:

  -- The Plaintiffs shall file a one- page Statement of Intent
     or a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by January 13, 2023.

  -- The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action
     for their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and breach of
     contract claims.

  -- The Court held oral argument on the motion on
     December 14, 2022.

Bristol Bay Native Corporation operates as an agriculture producer.


A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HFqO50 at no extra charge.[CC]

CBDMD INC: Davis Collective and Class Action Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
cbdMD, Inc. disclosed in  its Form F-10 Registration Statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14,
2022, that the United States District Court for the Central
District of California stayed the Davis collective and class action
suit indefinitely until the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or
the U.S. Congress takes definitive action on the regulatory status
of CBD.

In December 2019, Cynthia Davis filed a purported collective and
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against cbdMD and certain of our
competitors alleging violations of the California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as claims for
Breach of Express Warranties, Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability and Declaratory Relief.

On March 4, 2021 the Court granted cbdMD's motion to stay the case
until the FDA or Congress takes definitive action on the regulatory
status of CBD. The Company believes this matter will eventually be
dismissed but there is no timeline on when the FDA or Congress will
take action so the case is expected to be stayed indefinitely.

cbdMD, Inc. was originally founded in 2015 as an innovative
branding and marketing company with a focus on lifestyle-based
brands. In December 2018 pursuant to a two-step merger, the
company
acquired Cure Based Development LLC following the passage of the
United States Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, commonly known
as the "Farm Bill", which contained a permanent declassification
of
cannabidiol (CBD) as a controlled substance under federal law. As
a
result of that transaction, the company owns and operates the
nationally recognized CBD brand cbdMD which now represents the
company's focus and substantially all of its revenues. The company
is based in Charlotte, North Carolina.


CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Faces McCallion Suit Over SEC Filing Delay
------------------------------------------------------------
Celsius Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that on
March 16, 2022, Christian McCallion filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

Plaintiff McCallion asserts that because of the company's delay in
filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2021, there was a decline in the market value of the company's
securities and as a result, class members suffered significant
losses and damages. On June 6, 2022, Judge Middlebrooks appointed a
lead class plaintiff and the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on
August 5, 2022.

Celsius is a company in the functional energy drink and liquid
supplement categories based in Florida.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Fox Allowed Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FOX et al v. CHIPOTLE
MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01448 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge William S. Stickman entered an order on Motion for Leave to
file Documents Under Seal.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs may file their motion for class
certification under seal, along with a public redacted version. Do
not electronically file the sealed version of the document until
you electronically file the redacted version of the document, using
the Redacted Document event, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
You are required to serve the sealed document on counsel using
traditional service methods. Document Sealed Permanently."

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property Damage.

Chipotle is an American chain of fast casual restaurants
specializing in bowls, tacos and Mission burritos made to order in
front of the customer. Chipotle operates restaurants in the United
States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France.[CC]

CLEANSPARK INC: Continues to Defend Bishins Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
CleanSpark Inc.. disclosed in  its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December
14, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the
Bishins class suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On January 20, 2021, Scott Bishins, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated (together, the "Class"), filed a
class action complaint (the "Class Complaint") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Zachary Bradford
("Bradford"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Lori Love ("Love")
(such action, the "Class Action"). The Class Complaint alleged
that, between December 31, 2020 and January 14, 2021, the Company,
Bradford, and Love "failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the
Company had overstated its customer and contract figures; (2) that
several of the Company’s recent acquisitions involved undisclosed
related party transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis."

The Class Complaint sought: (a) certification of the Class, (b) an
award of compensatory damages to the Class, and (c) an award of
reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Class in the
litigation.

On December 2, 2021, the Court appointed Darshan Hasthantra as lead
Plaintiff (together, with Bishins, the "Plaintiffs"), and Glancy,
Prongay and Murray LLP as class counsel.

Hasthantra filed an Amended Complaint on February 28, 2022 (the
"Amended Class Complaint"). In the Amended Class Complaint, Love is
no longer a defendant and S. Matthew Schultz ("Schultz") has been
added as a defendant (the Company, Bradford and Schultz,
collectively, the "Defendants").

The Amended Class Complaint alleges that, between December 10, 2020
and August 16, 2021 (the "Class Period"),

Defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding the
Company's acquisition of ATL Data Centers, Inc. ("ATL") and its
anticipated expansion of bitcoin mining operations.

In particular, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants: (1) were
misleading in their various public announcements related to the
timeline for expanding ATL's mining capacity; and (2) failed to
disclose other material conditions purportedly related to the
Company's acquisition of ATL, including that an ATL predecessor had
filed for bankruptcy about six months prior to the acquisition,
that another bitcoin miner had declined to acquire ATL, and that a
related party had performed an audit of ATL for the Company.

The Amended Class Complaint seeks: (a) certification of the Class,
(b) an award of compensatory damages to the Class, and (c) an award
of reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Class in the
litigation.

To date, no class has been certified in the Class Action.
The Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on April 28, 2022.

The Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of all claims asserted in the
Amended Class Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend
on the grounds that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 27, 2022.
Defendants' reply in further support of their Motion to Dismiss was
filed on August 11, 2022.

The parties are awaiting a decision or oral argument on the Motion
to Dismiss.

Although the ultimate outcome of the Class Action cannot be
determined with certainty, the Company stands behind all of its
prior statements and disclosures and believes that the claims
raised in the Amended Class Complaint and the Class Complaint are
entirely without merit.

The Company intends to both defend itself vigorously against these
claims and to vigorously prosecute any counterclaims.

Headquartered in Bountiful, Utah, CleanSpark, Inc. --
www.cleanspark.com -- is in the business of providing advanced
energy software and control technology that enables a
plug-and-play
enterprise solution to modern energy challenges. Its services
consist of intelligent energy monitoring and controls, microgrid
design and engineering and consulting services. Its software
allows energy users to obtain resiliency and economic
optimization.
The Company's software is uniquely capable of enabling a microgrid
to be scaled to the user's specific needs and can be widely
implemented across commercial, industrial, military and municipal
deployment.


CORE SCIENTIFIC: Faces Peng Suit Over Non-Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------
Core Scientific, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2022, that in
November 2022, plaintiff Mei Peng filed a putative class action in
the United States District court, Western District of Texas, Austin
Division, asserting that the company violated the Securities
Exchange Act by failing to disclose to investors, among other
things, that the company was vulnerable to litigation, that certain
clients had breached their agreements, and that this impacted the
company's profitability and ability to continue as a going
concern.

Core Scientific, Inc. is an operator of facilities for digital
asset mining colocation services and a provider of blockchain
infrastructure, software solutions, and services based in Texas.


CREDIT SUISSE: Third Amended Civil CMP, Sched Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SET CAPITAL LLC, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE
INTERNATIONAL, TIDJANE THIAM, DAVID R. MATHERS, JANUS HENDERSON
GROUP PLC, JANUS INDEX & CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, and JANUS
DISTRIBUTORS LLC d/b/a/ JANUS HENDERSON DISTRIBUTORS, Case No.
1:18-cv-02268-AT-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Netburn
entered a third amended civil case management plan and scheduling
order as follows:

  -- All fact discovery, including        February 28, 2023
     fact depositions, shall be
     completed no later than:

  -- Counsel for Defendants shall         December 16, 2023
     provide deposition dates in
     February 2022 for all noticed
     deponents that they represent
     no later than:

  -- Class certification reply brief      December 16, 2022
     and expert rebuttal report(s)
     shall be filed by:

  -- Lead Plaintiffs' Opposition to       December 16, 2022
     Defendants' Daubert motion
     shall be filed by:

  -- The Defendants' Reply in further     January 31, 2023
     support of their Daubert motion
     shall be filed by:

  -- Expert depositions to be             August 15, 2023
     completed by:

  -- All expert discovery shall be        August 15, 2023
     completed no later than:


  -- All motions for summary             September 29, 2023.
     judgment shall be filed
     no later than:

  -- Oppositions to motions              October 30, 2023
     for summary judgment shall
     be filed no later than:

Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services
firm founded and based in Switzerland.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W19yLX at no extra charge.[CC]

DELTA STAR: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Extended to August 28, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Max Wilson, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, v. Delta Star, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order extending the time for
the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification:

   1. The Plaintiff's time to file his motion for class
      certification is continued to 180 days, to Aug. 28, 2023.

   2. The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class
      certification shall be filed on or before Sept. 28, 2023.

   3. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class
      certification shall be filed on or before Sept. 28, 2023.

   4. The non-expert discovery cutoff is continued by 90 days to
      Feb. 8, 2024.

Delta Star is an American-owned medium power transformer
manufacturer in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G2WWyo at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han,Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Talia Lux, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230 7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
                  statavos@justicealawcorp.com
                  tlux@justicelawcorp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq.
          Olga Savage, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACK WELL LLP
          199 Harrison Street, Suite 700
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (650) 645 9000
          Facsimile: (650) 235 0398
          E-mail: Tyler.Paetkau@huschblackwell.com
                  Olga.savage@huscblackwell.com

DELTA STAR: Extension of Class Cert. Filing Sought
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties file a joint stipulation and proposed order extending the
time for plaintiff to file his motion for class certification:

   1. The Plaintiff's time to file his motion for class
      certification is continued by one hundred eighty
      (180) days, to August 28, 2023;

   2. The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class
      certification shall be filed on or before September 28,
      2023; and

   3. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class
      certification shall be filed on or before October 27,
      2023.

On August 19, 2021, the Plaintiff commenced a class action,
alleging violation of Labor Code including unpaid overtime and
unpaid minimum wages.

On January 10, 2022, the Plaintiff propounded written discovery on
Defendant, consisting of Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for
Production of Documents (Set One).

On August 2, 2022, the Parties attended mediation with Alan
Berkowitz. The Parties were unable to come to a resolution.

On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer
letter regarding what he contends to be Defendant's deficient
discovery responses to Plaintiff's discovery. The Parties
telephonically met and conferred regarding the same on October 20,
2022, and Defendant agreed to supplement some of its responses and
to produce certain additional documents, including a sampling of
time and payroll records for the putative class members.

Delta Star is an American-owned medium power transformer
manufacturer in the United States and the premier manufacturer of
mobile transformers and mobile power substations in North America.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FWgYdJ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Talia Lux, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
                  statavos@justicelawcorp.com
                  tlux@justicelawcorp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq.
          Olga Savage, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 700
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (650) 645-9000
          Facsimile: (650) 235-0398
          E-mail: Tyler.Paetkau@huschblackwell.com
                  Olga.savage@huschblackwell.com

DIGITAL REALTY: Seeks to Seal Portions of Counterclaim
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PONY.AI, INC., v. DIGITAL
REALTY TRUST, INC.; DIGITAL REALTY TRUST L.P.; and TELX SANTA
CLARA, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-05428-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants
file an administrative motion to file under seal portions of the
Counterclaim and Certain Exhibits.

Compelling reasons exist to seal the designated portions of these
documents including: Counterclaim on page 31, line 16; page 23,
lines 19 and 21; page 33, 25 lines 16 and 17; and page 35, line 7
and Counterclaim Exhibits A (Master Agreement), B (2019 26 Service
Order), C (Amendment to Master Agreement), portions of F (Email
Communications), portions of G (Dispute Notice), portions of H-J
(Email Communications), portions of K (Letter), portions of L
(check) ("Proposed Redactions"). Disclosure of the confidential
information contained therein would harm Defendants' commercial and
competitive standing, and the general public has no compelling
interest in such information.

DLR seeks to seal portions of its Counterclaim and certain exhibits
thereto, that quote, describe, or tend to reveal the terms of the
Master Agreement and Service Orders defining the parties'
contractual relationship. 1 DLR also seeks to seal specific
descriptions of the services it offers, the pricing for those
services, and the manner and timing by which those services are
provided.

Because all of the Proposed Redactions contain sensitive and
strategic business 16 information, DLR requests that the Court
grant this Administrative Motion and permit the Proposed Redactions
to remain under seal.

Digital Realty is a real estate investment trust that invests in
carrier-neutral data centers and provides colocation and peering
services.

A copy of the Defendants' motion Dec. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WjGzCH at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alicia A. Baiardo, Esq.
          Joshua Q. Jamieson, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3821
          Telephone: (415) 844-9944
          Facsimile: (415) 844-9922
          E-mail: abaiardo@mcguirewoods.com

DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Faces Labor Suit in California Court
------------------------------------------------------
Dycom Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 23, 2022, that on August 10,
2021, one of the company's subsidiaries was named in a putative
class action lawsuit alleging claims on behalf of its non-exempt
employees in California.

The lawsuit alleges that the company failed to pay minimum and
overtime wages, did not provide required meal and rest breaks, did
not timely pay wages during employment and at the time of
termination, provided non-compliant wage statements, failed to
reimburse necessary business expenses, failed to keep requisite
payroll records, and engaged in unfair business practices. On
September 14, 2021, the same plaintiff bringing the putative class
action filed a separate representative action under California's
Private Attorneys General Action seeking civil penalties

Dycom Industries, Inc. is a provider of specialty contracting
services based in Florida.


ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER: Settlement Deal in Kain Gets Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA KAIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE ECONOMIST
NEWSPAPER NA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-11807-MFL-CI (E.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Matthew F. Leitman entered an order granting preliminary
approval of class action settlement agreement, certifying
settlement class, appointing class representative, appointing class
counsel, and approving notice plan:

  --  The Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court
      on March 15, 2023, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 207 at Theodore
      Levin United States Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd.,
      Detroit, Michigan.

  --  Class Counsel shall file papers in support of their Fee
      Award and Class Representative's Service Award
      (collectively, the "Fee Petition") with the Court on or
      before February 6, 2023.

  --  The Defendant may, but is not required to, file a response
      to Class Counsel's Fee Petition with the Court on or
      before February 22, 2023. Class Counsel may file a reply
      in support of their Fee Petition with the Court on or
      before March 1, 2023.

  --  Papers in support of final approval of the Settlement
      Agreement and any supplementation to the Fee Petition
      shall be filed with the Court on or before March 1, 2023.

  --  Certification of the Settlement Class

      For purposes of settlement only: (a) Joseph I. Marchese
      and Philip L. Fraietta of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Frank S.
      Hedin and Arun G. Ravindran of Hedin Hall LLP, and E.
      Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm, P.C. are appointed
      Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; and (b) Rebecca
      Kain is named Class Representative.

  --  For purposes of settlement only, the Court conditionally
      certifies the following Settlement Class as defined in the
      Settlement Agreement:

      "All Persons with a Michigan street address who subscribed
      to The Economist Publication to be delivered to a
      Michigan street address or electronically between
      February 4, 2015, and July 30, 2016."

Economist Newspaper was founded in 1989. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of books, periodicals,
and newspapers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HLsidZ at no extra charge.[CC]

ENBRIDGE INC: Court Junks Proposed Scheduling Order in BHK Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BHK Realty, LLC et al., v.
Enbridge, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00642 (D.R.I.), the Hon.
Judge John J. Mcconnell, Jr. entered an order denying the proposed
scheduling order by the parties for class certification
determination.

This case is already more than three years old and under the
proposed scheduled class certification would not occur until the
case is 5 years old. The parties should meet and confer and propose
a schedule that has class certification fully briefed and before
the Court no later than June 30, 2023.

The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.

Enbridge is a multinational pipeline and energy company
headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Enbridge owns and
operates pipelines throughout Canada and the United States,
transporting crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids.[CC]

ENVESTNET INC: Faces Wesch Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Envestnet, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that the company and its
subsidiary Yodlee, Inc. were named as defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit filed on August 25, 2020, by Plaintiff Deborah
Wesch in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California. On October 21, 2020, an amended class action
complaint was filed by Plaintiff Wesch and nine additional named
plaintiffs.

The case caption is "Deborah Wesch, et al., v. Yodlee, Inc., et
al.," Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK. Plaintiffs allege that Yodlee
unlawfully collected their financial transaction data when
plaintiffs linked their bank accounts to a mobile application that
uses Yodlee's API, and plaintiffs further allege that Yodlee
unlawfully sold the transaction data to third parties.

The complaint alleges violations of certain California statutes and
common law, including the Unfair Competition Law, and federal
statutes, including the Stored Communications Act. Plaintiffs are
seeking monetary damages and equitable and injunctive relief on
behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class and California
subclass of persons who provided their log-in credentials to a
Yodlee-powered app in an allegedly similar manner from 2014 to the
present.

The company believes that it is not properly named as a defendant
in the lawsuit and it further believes, along with Yodlee, that
plaintiffs' claims are without merit. On November 4, 2020, the
company and Yodlee filed separate motions to dismiss all of the
claims in the complaint. On February 16, 2021, the district court
granted in part and denied in part Yodlee's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to further
amend. The court reserved ruling on the company's motion to dismiss
and granted limited jurisdictional discovery to the plaintiffs.

On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class
action complaint re-alleging, among others, the claims the district
court had dismissed. The second amended complaint did not allege
any claims against the company or Yodlee that were not previously
alleged in first amended complaint. On May 5, 2021, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted against it in the
second amended complaint, and Yodlee filed a motion to dismiss most
claims asserted against it in the second amended complaint. On July
19, 2021, the court granted in part Yodlee's motion, resulting in
the dismissal of all federal law claims and two of the state-law
claims.

On August 5, 2021, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and dismissed the company from the lawsuit. On October 8,
2021, Yodlee filed a motion for summary judgment, which has been
fully briefed. The oral argument on Yodlee's motion was heard on
September 19, 2022, and the motion has been submitted for decision.
On August 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third
amended complaint, which Yodlee opposed. On September 29, 2022, the
Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint.

Envestnet, Inc. is a financial services company based in
Pennsylvania.


ERICO INT'L: Parties Seek Certification of Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PARRIS MCKNIGHT, et al.,
On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ERICO
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-01826-JPC (N.D. Ohio),
the Parties file a joint motion for certification of the settlement
class, final approval of the class action settlement, and other
associated relief.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

The Plaintiffs are Parris McKnight, Dawn Adams, Matthew Bailey,
Ryan Evans, Corey Green, Deresse Jackson, Latonya Jordan, Joshua
Livingston, Michael Metz, Robert Metz, Frederick Midgley, Randi
Robinson, Tia Robinson, and Tyronn Taylor.

Erico manufactures engineered electrical and fastening products.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v1LDQx at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott II
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM , LLC
          Telephone: (216) 912-222
          Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
          50 Public Square, Suite 1900
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carrie A. McAtee, Esq.
          SHOOK , HARDY & BACON LLP
          2555 Grand Blvd.
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 559-2512
          E-mail: cmcatee@shb.com

                - and -

          Gust Callas, Esq.
          BLACK , MCCUSKEY, SOUERS & ARBAUGH
          220 Market Avenue South, Suite 1000
          Canton, Ohio 44702
          Telephone: (330) 456-8341
          Facsimile: (330) 456-5756
          E-mail: gcallas@bmsa.com

ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend Illegal Fees Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the illegal fees class suit.

The Bank was named as a defendant in an action commenced on
December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who sought to pursue this action
as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people similarly
situated.

The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously acquired by ESSA
Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks in the process of
making loans, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.

In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the
Bank’s motion to dismiss the case.

The plaintiff appealed the court's ruling.

In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court
reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case
against the Bank and remanded the case back to the district court
in order to continue the litigation.

The litigation is now proceeding before the district court.  

On December 9, 2019, the court permitted an amendment to the
complaint to add two new plaintiffs to the case asserting similar
claims.  

On May 21, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  

In an order dated November 24, 2020, the court referred the case to
a Magistrate Judge to assist in mediation efforts.  

The case was stayed while the parties explored the potential for a
negotiated resolution.

The parties engaged in mediation but did not resolve the matter.  

The parties are now in the discovery process.  

The Bank will continue to defend against plaintiffs' allegations.

ESSA Bancorp, Inc. is a holding company of ESSA Bank & Trust based
in Pennsylvania.


ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend Sherman Act Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Sherman Act class suit.

On May 29, 2020, the Bank was named as a defendant in a second
action commenced by three plaintiffs who also seek to pursue this
action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people
similarly situated.  

The plaintiffs allege that a bank previously acquired by ESSA
Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks from a different title
company than the one involved in the previously discussed
litigation in the process of making loans.  

The original complaint alleged violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, the Sherman Act, and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").  

The plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on September 30, 2020
that dropped the RICO claim, but they are continuing to pursue the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and Sherman Act claims.  

The Bank moved to dismiss the Sherman Act claim on October 14,
2020, and that motion was denied on April 2, 2021.  

The parties are now in the discovery process. The Bank will
continue to defend against plaintiffs' allegations.  

To the extent that this matter could result in exposure to the
Bank, the amount of such exposure is not currently estimable.

ESSA Bancorp, Inc. is a holding company of ESSA Bank & Trust based
in Pennsylvania.

FIRST SAVINGS: Verbal Deal w/ Customer Fees Suit Claimants Reached
------------------------------------------------------------------
First Savings Bank disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company reached
a verbal settlement agreement with claimants in the customer fees
class suit.

First Savings Bank received notice of a class action lawsuit on
March 23, 2021 regarding its policy and practice of assessing
customer fees related to items presented on accounts with
insufficient funds (NSF items).

The Company has reached a verbal settlement agreement with the
claimant, and the Company has accrued a loss contingency for this
pending settlement at September 30, 2022, the amount of which had
an immaterial effect on the consolidated financial statements.

First Savings Bank is a family-owned, full service financial
institution with a specialty in commercial banking, serving
communities for over 100 years.

FORD MOTOR: Bid to Transfer Venue in Garrison Builders Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARRISON BUILDERS, LLC, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR CO.,
SECTION "A"(2), Civil Action No. 22-3664 (E.D. La.), Judge Jay C.
Zainey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana denies Ford's Motion to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1404(a).

Ford's motion, noticed for submission on Dec. 7, 2022, is before
the Court on the briefs without oral argument.

The Plaintiffs, Garrison Builders, LLC and Sanderson Services, LLC,
have filed the putative class action against Ford alleging a defect
in the CP4 highpressure fuel injection pump used in its diesel
trucks. Although the alleged defect has been observed nationwide,
the specific putative class in this case pertains to "persons or
entities in Louisiana."

A nationwide putative class action, that includes state-by-state
putative class claims, is pending in the Eastern District of
Michigan, which is where Ford has its principal place of business
-- Droesser v. Ford Motor Co., No. 5:19-cv-12365 (E.D. Mich.). Ford
moves to transfer the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a)
to the Eastern District of Michigan, a district where the
litigation could have been brought, for consolidation with the
Droesser litigation.

Judge Zainey explains that the party seeking a Section 1404(a)
transfer must show good cause, which incorporates the statutory
requirement that the transfer be for the convenience of the parties
and the witnesses, and in the interest of justice. Courts in this
circuit are guided by private and public interest factors when
determining whether good cause has been shown for a contested
Section 1404(a) transfer.

The private interest factors are: (1) the relative ease of access
to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for
willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make
trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. The public
interest factors are: (1) the administrative difficulties flowing
from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized
interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with
the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of
unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or in the application of
foreign law. Id.

Judge Zainey finds that Ford's overarching concern in urging a
transfer is the inefficiency and wastefulness inherent in
conducting duplicative litigation given that the putative
nationwide class action in Droesser includes state-by-state claims.
But the future of the Droesser case is uncertain because a motion
to dismiss is pending in that litigation. And Ford's credibility
suffers when it argues that discovery is complete in Droesser;
discovery is complete in Droesser only because counsel reached an
agreement to use the discovery taken in a Texas case (Stevens),
that the presiding judge declined to transfer to the Eastern
District of Michigan when Ford moved to do so.

Ford's motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of
Michigan, which is rife with criticisms of the litigation practices
of the Louisiana attorneys who brought the case, argues that the
private and public interest factors applicable to a Section 1404(a)
transfer decision support its case but they do not. Judge Zainey
finds it clear that by transferring the case to Michigan any
inconvenience that Ford would face in litigating here would be
foisted upon the Louisiana plaintiffs and in far worse magnitude.
In other words, the proposed transfer is for the convenience of
only one party.

Finally, the Plaintiffs point out in their opposition that when
Ford contacted them about the transfer they very reasonably
suggested that many of Ford's concerns would be allayed by a
temporary stay in the case. They reiterated this suggestion to the
Court in their opposition memorandum. Judge Zainey finds that
Plaintiffs' suggestion of a stay in the case to allow the Stevens
case in Texas to conclude is reasonable and alleviates any concern
with Ford having to litigate certain common issues twice and in two
forums.

Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, Judge Zainey denies
Motion to Transfer Venue. He stays the matter and orders the Clerk
of Court to close the case for administrative reporting purposes.
The case will be reopened upon motion of either party once
circumstances change in either the Droesser or Stevens matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9wc22vw from Leagle.com.


FRITO-LAY INC: Addison Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Addison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00314-DPM (E.D. Ark.,
Dec. 13, 2022), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, for declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

In late 2021, the Defendant's payroll system, Kronos, experienced a
ransomware attack. As a result of this hacking incident, Plaintiff
and other hourly-paid employees were unable to clock in or out for
their shifts from a period beginning in December 2021 and ending in
March 2022. Rather than setting up an alternative tracking system
for the Plaintiff and other hourly paid employees to track the
hours they worked, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid employees an "estimated weekly pay." This "estimated
weekly pay" was based on prior pay periods or reduced payroll
estimates, such as the average amount each employee was paid in the
three previous months. This "estimated weekly pay" was not an
accurate representation of the time Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
employees worked.

Specifically, during this period that the Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid employees couldn't track their time, the Plaintiff was
still required to work overtime shifts. These hours were not
reflected in the "estimated" pay he received. The Defendant
violated the FLSA and AMWA by not paying Plaintiff for all the
hours he worked. The Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard
for whether the way they paid the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
employees violated the FLSA and AMWA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee.

Frito-Lay Inc. is a manufacturer, marketer, and distributer of food
products and operates multiple manufacturing facilities worldwide,
including a facility in Jonesboro, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Burks, Esq.
          WHLAW | WE HELP
          Riverfront PL – Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Phone: (501) 891-6000
          Email: chris@wh.law


FRONTLINE ASSET: Henry Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Brenda Henry, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-02202 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 13,
2022).

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

Frontline Asset Strategies -- https://frontlineas.com/ -- is a
consumer-focused, performance-driven organization that delivers
compliant solutions through positive experiences and latest
technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com

FRY POWERS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fry Powers LLC. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Fry
Powers LLC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10543 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2022).

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

Fry Powers LLC -- https://www.frypowers.com/ -- offers jewelry
designed in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GENERAL MOTORS: Jefferson Seeks Extension to File Reply
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rilla Jefferson, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. General Motors
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02576-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. Extending the Plaintiff's deadline to respond to GM's
      motion for summary judgment to January 10, 2023 and extend
      GM's deadline to file a reply brief in support of its
      motion for summary judgment to January 31, 2023; and

   2. granting the Plaintiff leave to file a 5-page reply in
      support of her motion for class certification.

On November 22, 2022, Defendant General Motors moved for summary
judgment. The Plaintiff's current deadline to respond to the motion
for summary judgment is December 20, 2022.

However, in light of pre-planned vacations, other prior obligations
and litigation tasks and the upcoming holidays, Plaintiff
respectfully requests additional time, up to and including January
10, 2023, to prepare her response to Defendant's extensive motion
for summary judgment.

The General Motors Company is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United
States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W773YK at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Joshua Markovits, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road, Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424

                - and -

          Susan S. Lafferty, Esq.
          LAFFERTY LAW FIRM, INC.
          1321 Murfreesboro Pike, Suite 521
          Nashville, TN 37217
          Telephone: (615) 878-1926
          Facsimile: (615) 472-7852
          E-mail: ssl@laffertylawtn.com

GEO SECURE: Bid to Certify Class Must be Filed by March 3, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Castillo v. GEO Secure
Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00445 (D.S.C.), the Hon.
Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order granting in part and denying
in part the parties joint motion for a 90-day extension of the
February 3, 2023 deadline for the filing of the class certification
motion and the March 17, 2023 deadline to complete fact discovery:


  -- The motion to certify the class must be filed by March 3,
     2023 .

  -- All fact discovery must be completed by all parties by
     April 14, 2023.

  -- All other deadlines, instructions and mandatory procedures
     stated in the Court's September 9, 2022 Scheduling Order
     not explicitly modified herein remain in effect.

The Court finds there is good cause for a brief extension of these
pretrial deadlines; however, given that the parties' mediation is
set for next week, the Court finds the parties have not established
good cause for an extension of 90 days.

The nature of suit states Labor/Management Relations.[CC]

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Order Setting Class Cert Deadlines Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUR-RAVANTAB, et al., v.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01038 (D.D.C.), the Hon.
Judge Trevor N. Mcfadden entered an order setting class
certification deadlines as follows:

  -- The Parties shall exchange         December 30, 2022
     initial requests for
     production by:

  -- The parties shall exchange         January 13, 2023
     initial disclosures by:

  -- The parties shall meet and         February 13, 2023
     confer on initial requests
     for production of documents
     by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' motion for         April 28, 2023
     class certification shall be
     filed by:

  -- The Defendant's opposition is      June 30, 2023
     due by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' reply is           July 31, 2023
     due by:

  -- Fact discovery shall close on:     August 14, 2023

The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.

Georgetown University is a private research university in the
Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.[CC]

GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Parties Seek to Withdraw Documents
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MOORE,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC, and PFIZER,
INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate
and jointly request the following orders:

-- The filing clerk shall remove the following filings from the
    public docket in this action:

    (1) Support of Motion for Class Certification,

    (2) Declaration and Expert Report of Colin B. Weir,

    (3) Exhibit 5-1 [Reibrich Deposition], and

    (4) Exhibit 6 [Eppler Deposition];

-- The Plaintiff shall have five days from the date the Court
    enters an order granting relief to re-file the foregoing
    documents and any amended motion to seal necessary, which
    shall be treated as timely filed and served for the purpose
    of ruling on Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion, Motion
    to Seal, and any necessary amended motion to seal;

-- The Plaintiff shall have five days from the date the Court
    enters an order granting relief to re-file an amended Toutov
    Declaration and amended Memorandum to correct the
    inadvertent omissions outlined herein, and similarly file
    any amended  motion to seal necessary, which shall be
    treated as timely filed and served for the purpose of ruling
    on Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion, Motion to Seal,
    and any necessary amended motion to seal; and

-- The Defendants shall have seven days from the date that
    the Plaintiff files an amended motion to seal to file a
    statement and/or declaration in support of sealing, as
    required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), which shall be treated
    as timely filed and served for the purpose of the Court's
    ruling on the Motion to Seal, and any necessary amended
    motion to seal.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fx9CMn at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
          Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan S. Tam, Esq.
          Christina G. Sarchio, Esq.
          Lincoln D. Wilson, Esq.
          Matthew F. Williams, Esq.
          DECHERT, LLP

GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Conditional Status of FLSA Collective Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOYA KENAN and MONICA
COOPER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. GLOBAL PAYMENTS, INC., a Georgia Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-04270-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"):

   1. Conditionally certifying a FLSA Collective, defined as:

      "All current and former hourly remote Fraud Specialists
      employed by Global Payments, Inc. at any time from three
      years prior to the date this motion was filed through the
      date of judgment in this case";

   2. Implementing a procedure to send Court-approved Notice of
      this action to putative members of the proposed Collective
      via US Mail and email;

   3. Requiring Defendant to identify all putative members of
      the proposed Collective by providing a list of their
      names, last known addresses, dates and locations of
      employment, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in
      electronic and importable format, e.g., a Microsoft Excel
      spreadsheet, within 14 days of the entry of the order;

   4. Approving a 60 day opt-in period from the date the Court-
      approved Notice is sent during which putative members of
      the Collective may join this case by returning their
      written consents; and

   5. Approving the short reminder Notice to be sent to the
      Collective via text message 30 days into the opt-in period

Global Payments is an American multinational financial technology
company that provides payment technology and services to merchants,
issuers and consumers.

A copy of the  Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3V6hES7 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          ASH LAW, PLLC
          402 W. Liberty St.
          Ann Arbor, MI 48178
          Telephone: (734) 234-5583
          E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com

                - and -

          Andrew Y. Coffman, Esq.
          PARKS, CHESIN, & WALBERT, PC
          75 14th Street, 26th Floor
          Atlanta, GA
          Telephone: (404) 873-8000
          E-mail: acoffman@pcwlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
          HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
          126 Main St
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903
          Telephone: (734) 662-4426
          E-mail: orod@hooperhathaway.com

GOOGLE LLC: Wins Summary Judgment in Brown Data Collection Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASOM BROWN, ET AL. v.
GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-03664-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order:

   1. granting the Google's Motion for Summary Judgment;

   2. denying as moot the plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification and plaintiffs' motion for Leave to
      Supplement the Briefing Regarding Remedies;

   3. denying the plaintiffs' motion for Leave to Supplement the
      Record as to Google's Motion for Summary Judgment and to
      File a Sur-Reply.

The Plaintiffs bring this suit against Google based on Google's
alleged data collection practices and use of data from "users who
chose not to 'Sync' their Google accounts with Chrome while
browsing the web."

Six alleged claims remain: (1) violation of the California Invasion
of Privacy Act (Count Five); (2) intrusion upon seclusion (Count
Seven); (3) breach of contract (Count Eight); (4) breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count Nine); (5)
statutory larceny (Count Thirteen); and (6) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law (Count Fourteen).

In May 2018, Google modified the New Account Creation Agreement to
include more disclosures about how information is combined. The
modified New Account Agreement explains that "Google shows you ads
based on information about your interests, which we can derive from
your use of Search and YouTube."

The Court finds no dispute exists that the collection of the
at-issue data, except for the X-client-data identifier, is
browser-agnostic. The evidence shows that plaintiffs now complain
not about the type or nature of the data but the quantity and its
use.

Google's expert, Dr. Georgios Zervas, an associate professor of
marketing at Boston University's Questrom School of Business,
testified that all categories of the at-issue data are collected
irrespective of the browser one uses.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company focusing
on search engine technology, online advertising, cloud computing,
computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, artificial
intelligence, and consumer electronics.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FqtW2c at no extra charge.[CC]

GOOGLE LLC: Wins Summary Judgment in Calhoun Data Collection Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as  PATRICK CALHOUN, ET. AL.
.v. GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order:

   1. granting the Google's Motion for Summary Judgment;

   2. denying as moot the plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification and plaintiffs' motion for Leave to
      Supplement the Briefing Regarding Remedies;

   3. denying the plaintiffs' motion for Leave to Supplement the
      Record as to Google's Motion for Summary Judgment and to
      File a Sur-Reply.

The Plaintiffs bring this suit against Google based on Google's
alleged data collection practices and use of data from "users who
chose not to 'Sync' their Google accounts with Chrome while
browsing the web."

Six alleged claims remain: (1) violation of the California Invasion
of Privacy Act (Count Five); (2) intrusion upon seclusion (Count
Seven); (3) breach of contract (Count Eight); (4) breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count Nine); (5)
statutory larceny (Count Thirteen); and (6) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law (Count Fourteen).

In May 2018, Google modified the New Account Creation Agreement to
include more disclosures about how information is combined. The
modified New Account Agreement explains that "Google shows you ads
based on information about your interests, which we can derive from
your use of Search and YouTube."

The Court finds no dispute exists that the collection of the
at-issue data, except for the X-client-data identifier, is
browser-agnostic. The evidence shows that plaintiffs now complain
not about the type or nature of the data but the quantity and its
use.

Google's expert, Dr. Georgios Zervas, an associate professor of
marketing at Boston University's Questrom School of Business,
testified that all categories of the at-issue data are collected
irrespective of the browser one uses.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company focusing
on search engine technology, online advertising, cloud computing,
computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, artificial
intelligence, and consumer electronics.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UQ7l4I at no extra charge.[CC]

GOYA FOODS: Seeks Approval of Pre-Certification Communications
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIBAL MEJIAS, DENNIS
MINTER, JERRY FULLER, and JOSE PENA, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, v. GOYA FOODS, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-12365-BRM-JRA (D.N.J.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order approving the proposed pre-certification
communications to putative class members.

Goya Foods produces and distributes food products.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hvGNYJ at no extra
charge.[CC]


The Defendant is represented by:

          Andy G. Mercado, Esq.
          Kevin P. Hishta, Esq.
          Margaret Santen, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          10 Madison Avenue, Suite 400
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Telephone: (973) 656-1600
          Facsimile: (973) 656-1611
          E-mail: andy.mercado@ogletree.com

GREAT AMERICAN: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Feb. 24, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAMID R. TAVAKOLIAN,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. GREAT AMERICAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-01133-SPG-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace
Garnett entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue
hearing on motion for class certification and related dates as
follows:

-- That the deadline for Plaintiff      February 24, 2023
    to file his Motion for Class
    Certification, currently set
    for January 19, 2023, be
    continued to:

-- That the deadline for Defendant      April 7, 2023
    to file its Opposition to Motion
    for Class Certification, be set
    for:

-- That the deadline for Plaintiff      April 28, 2023
    to file his Reply to Motion
    for Class Certification be
    set for:

Great American operates as a stock insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WlhDep at no extra charge.[CC]

GREENWICH VILLAGE: Order Regarding Class Cert Deadlines Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ROMAN v. GREENWICH
VILLAGE DENTAL ARTS P.C., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05939-JGK-GWG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered an order
regarding class certification deadlines:

  1. All discovery (as well as requests for admissions) must be
     initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all
     discovery.

  2. The parties are required to make affirmative attempts to
     settle this matter through discussions among counsel. If
     the parties are unable to settle the case by such means,
     they are required to use mediation to assist them in
     achieving settlement. Mediation may be undertaken by means
     of private mediation or Court-supervised mediation, which
     includes the Court's mediation program or potentially a
     conference before the undersigned.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hslBTv at no extra charge.[CC]


GREG LINDBERG: Loses Bid to Junk Jordan Suit
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES JORDAN, et al., v.
GREG E. LINDBERG, Case No. (M.D.N.C.), the Court entered an order
that:

   1. The defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

   2. The defendant's motion to stay the motion for class
      certification pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss,
      is denied as moot.

The motion for class certification, remains under advisement and
will be resolved by separate order.  The motion to consolidate,
will also be resolved by separate order.

The plaintiffs, insurance agents and agencies, allege that they
have contracts with Preferred Financial Corporation, LLC, for the
payment of commissions arising out of the sale of insurance
policies that Preferred has not paid, and that the defendant, Greg
Lindberg, is liable for Preferred's breach of contract through a
piercing-the-corporate-veil theory.

Mr. Lindberg's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to join
a necessary party and failure to state a claim will be denied, as
there is no necessary and indispensable party who has not been
joined and the complaint states plausible claims against Mr.
Lindberg.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iUDpqG at no extra charge.[CC]

HANES BRANDS: Faces Toussaint Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Hanes Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that on October 13,
2022, another putative class action was filed against Hanes Brands,
Inc. alleging, among other things, negligence, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust
enrichment in connection with the ransomware incident.

The litigation is entitled, "Toussaint v. HanesBrands, Inc." and is
pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina. The lawsuits seek, among other things, monetary
and injunctive relief.

Hanesbrands Inc. is a marketer of everyday basic innerwear and
activewear apparel based in North Carolina.


HANESBRANDS INC: Faces Ramon Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Hanes Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that the company is
named in two lawsuits in connection with the ransomware incident.
On October 7, 2022, a putative class action was filed against Hanes
Brands, Inc. alleging, among other things, negligence, negligence
per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair
business practices under the California Business and Professions
Code, and violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act in connection with the ransomware incident.

The litigation is entitled, "Ramon v. Hanes Brands, Inc.," and is
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

Hanesbrands Inc. is a marketer of everyday basic innerwear and
active wear apparel based in North Carolina.


HID GLOBAL: Cooper Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Robin Cooper and Darneisha Smith,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. HID
GLOBAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2022-CH-11116
was removed from the Circuit Court for the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Dec. 14, 2022, and assigned Case
No. 1:22-cv-07058.

The Complaint alleges that HID "captured, collected, and stored"
Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers and information, "failed to
provide any written disclosures describing its purpose for using"
Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers and information, and "failed to
obtain" Plaintiffs' consent prior to "disclosing and/or
disseminating" their biometric identifiers and information. Based
on these and other allegations, Plaintiffs assert one claim for the
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David L. Gerbie, Esq.
          Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
          Colin P. Buscarini, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Email: dgerbie@mcgpc.com
                 aheldut@mcgpc.com
                 cbuscarini@mcgpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Debra R. Bernard, Esq.
          Calvin Cohen, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60606-1511
          Phone: (312) 324-8400
          Facsimile: (312) 324-9400
          Email: DBernard@perkinscoie.com
                 CCohen@perkinscoie.com

HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Whatley FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brandon Whatley, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Honda Development & Manufacturing
of America LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00935 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Dec. 14,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04372-EAS-KAJ to
the proceeding.

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

Honda Development & Manufacturing of America LLC --
http://ohio.honda.com/-- manufactures motor vehicles and
parts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Phone: 713 999 5228
          Email: matt@parmet.law

               - and -

          Victoria L. Dye, Esq.
          MORGAN AND MORGAN, PLLC
          2317 3rd Avenue North, Suite 102
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (659) 204-6363
          Fax: (659) 204-6388
          Email: vdye@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David S Bloomfield, Jr., Esq.
          Syed Ahmadul Huda, Esq.
          PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR
          41 South High Street, Ste. 2800-3200
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 227-2169
          Fax: (614) 227-2100
          Email: dbloomfield@porterwright.com
                 ahuda@porterwright.com

INDEPENDENT BANK: Grice Files Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jamila Grice, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. Independent Bank,
Case No. 7:20-cv-01948-TMC (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting class certification pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Independent Bank is a Michigan-based bank that offers loans,
mortgages, personal & business banking.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j4V0MD  at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 N. Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258-299
          Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
          E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 500-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielgold.com

                - and -

          Taras Peter Kick, Esq.
          Tyler Dosaj, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  tyler@kicklawfirm.com

INSOURCECODE LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insourcecode, LLC.
The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Insourcecode, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-10551 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2022).

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

inSourceCode is an Indianapolis-based web development company that
builds big things with WordPress.[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

JACK SKEEN: More Time to File Responses to Certify Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE REULE, et. al.,
v THE HONORABLE JUDGE JACK SKEEN, et. al., Case No.
6:22-cv-00367-JDK (E.D. Tex.), the Defendants Judge Skeen and Ms.
Clarkston ask the Court granting their opposed motion for extension
of time, making Judge Skeen's and Ms. Clarkston's responses to the
Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Certify a Defendant Class of
Administrative Judges and a Defendant Class of Texas Court Clerks
due thirty days after this Court rules upon Defendants' entitlement
to sovereign immunity.

The Defendants contend that they do not seek this extension for
delay, but in order to preserve judicial resources and safeguard
Defendants' entitlement to immunity from suit before the threshold
jurisdictional challenges are resolved.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FTKwsx at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ken Paxton, Esq.
          Brent Webster, Esq.
          Grant Dorfman, Esq.
          Shawn Cowles, Esq.
          Christopher D. Hilton, Esq.
          Caroline A. Merideth
          GENERAL LITIGATION DIVISION
          P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station, MC-019
          Austin, TX 78711-2548
          Telephone: (512) 463-2120
          Facsimile: (512) 320-0667
          E-mail: caroline.merideth@oag.texas.gov

                - and -

          David Iglesias, Esq.
          James A. Evans III, Esq.
          Stephanie Ernst, Esq.
          IGLESIAS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          605 Chase Drive, Suite 8
          Tyler, TX 75701
          Telephone: (903) 944-7185
          Facsimile: (903) 630-5338
          E-mail: david@iglesiaslawfirm.com
                  jim@iglesiaslawfirm.com
                  stephanie@iglesiaslawfirm.com

JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Erickson Seeks to Certify Stockholder Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erickson v. Jernigan
Capital, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09575-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. Certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the
      following class:

      "All holders of Jernigan Capital, Inc. common stock as of
      September 11, 2020, the record date for eligibility to
      vote on the acquisition of Jernigan's outstanding common
      stock by affiliates of NexPoint Advisors, L.P. for $17.30
      per share in cash, who were harmed thereby;"

      Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and
      directors of the Company at all relevant times, members of
      their immediate families and their legal representatives,
      heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which
      Defendants have or had a controlling interest.;

   2. Appointing Lead Plaintiff John R. Erickson to serve as
      Class Representative of the Class as defined above; and

   3. Appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class
      Counsel.

Jernigan Capital is a commercial real estate finance company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec.. 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WaauO6
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad Johnson, Esq.
          Noam Mandel, Esq.
          Desiree Cummings, Esq.
          Jonathan Zweig, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 432-5100
          E-mail: chadj@rgrdlaw.com
                  noam@rgrdlaw.com
                  dcummings@rgrdlaw.com
                  jzweig@rgrdlaw.com

JVK OPERATIONS: Order on Class Certification Briefing Entered
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Montiel-Flores, et al., v.
JVK Operations Limited, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-03005 (E.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Joanna Seybert entered an order adopting the
following briefing schedule with regard to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification:

  -- The Defendants shall file and       February 10, 2023
     serve their opposition on or
     before:

  -- The Plaintiffs shall file and       March 10, 2023
     serve their reply, if any:

JVK Operations provides linen and garments laundry services for
healthcare facilities on the East Coast.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]

KC GOURMET: Order on General Pretrial Management Entered
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIRKPATRICK DUNBAR, v. KC
GOURMET EMPANADAS LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10453-PAE-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management as follows:

   -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those
      related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions
      to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for
      injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class
      certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to
      Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
      Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available
      on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-
      barbara-moses.

   -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery
      must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of
      discovery set by the Court.

   -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions
      requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly
      after the need for such an application arises and must
      comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of
      Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is the
      Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule
      37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a
      party requests or the Court requires more formal briefing.

   -- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
      conferences are not required, but may be requested where
      counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court
      may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.

   -- This Order does not dispense with the requirements set
      forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5), including the
      requirement that, unless the parties stipulate otherwise,
      the deposition be "conducted before an officer appointed
      or designated under Rule 28," and that the deponent be
      placed under oath by that officer. For avoidance of doubt,
      a deposition will be deemed to have been conducted
      "before" an officer so long as that officer attends the
      deposition via the same remote means (e.g., telephone
      conference call or video conference) used to connect all
      other remote participants, and so long as all participants
      (including the officer) can clearly hear and be heard by
      all other participants.

KC Gourmet is a colorful, vibrant and casual Panamanian Latin
restaurant located in the East Village - Lower East Side
neighborhood of Manhattan.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WB9eUj at no extra charge.[CC]

LABORATORY CORPORATION: Aguilar FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Adriana Aguilar, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Laboratory Corporation of America, Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV35513 was removed from
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 14, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-09050-DSF-AFM to
the proceeding.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, more commonly known as
Labcorp -- https://www.labcorp.com/ -- is an American healthcare
company headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent Charles Granberry, Esq.
          Courtney Marisa Miller, Esq.
          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Pooja Virendra Patel, Esq.
          LAVI AND EBRAHIMIAN LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Fax: (310) 432-0001
          Email: vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                 cmiller@lelawfirm.com
                 jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                 ppatel@lelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Phone: (818) 609-0807
          Fax: (818) 609-0892
          Email: sahagii@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rebecca J. Wahlquist, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE AND WARREN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue Suite 3800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 547-4900
          Fax: (213) 547-4901
          Email: bwahlquist@kelleydrye.com

LINDE GAS: Class Cert-Related Order Entered in Mountain Hi Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOUNTAIN HI, LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. LINDE GAS &
EQUIPMENT INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01432-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge entered an class certification related order as follows:

    JURY TRIAL DATE                           October 28, 2024

    Length of Trial                           8 to 12 days

    Discovery on class certification          October 9, 2023
    issues completed by

    Any motions related to class              December 7, 2023
    certification must be filed by

    Deadline for joining additional parties   February 1, 2024

    Any motions for leave to amend            February 1, 2024
    pleadings filed by

    Disclosure of expert testimony            February 20, 2024
    under FRCP 26(a)(2)

    All motions related to discovery          March 7, 2024
    must be filed by

    All remaining discovery completed by      April 4, 2024

    All dispositive motions must be filed     May 30, 2024
    by and noted on the motion calendar
    no later than the fourth Friday
    thereafter (see LCR 7(d))

Linde Gas is a provider of industrial gases, applications, products
and services that support welding, cutting and other processes.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HCPHyv at no extra charge.[CC]


LLOYD AUSTIN: Allowed Leave to Combine Response & Class Bids
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCHELSKE, et al v.
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his official capacity as United States
Secretary of Defense, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00049-H (N.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order granting the
Defendants' unopposed motion for leave to combine the Defendants'
Response to the Plaintiffs' class motions and to file excess
pages.

The Defendants may file a combined response brief of up to 40
pages.

The Plaintiffs may also file a combined reply brief of up to 25
pages in support of their motions for class certification and
lass-wide preliminary injunction.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BBDeHo at no extra charge.[CC]

LOS ANGELES, CA: Millstein Seeks to Certify FLSA Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN MILLSTEIN,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; NORTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and DOES
1-100, Case No. 2:21-cv-02623-MEMF-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order preliminarily certifying the
collective action under the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA), and
order that notice be provided to the class.

The Plaintiff moves for preliminary certification of the following
classes:

    -- Unpaid Overtime Wage Class

       "All current and former non-exempt hourly paid Custody
       Assistants employees that worked at the North County
       Correctional Facility who worked over 40 hours in a
       workweek for the County of Los Angeles at any time within
       the three years prior to filing the initial Complaint
       through April 10, 2023 (the opt-in period closure date)
       who were not paid their overtime wages;"

    -- Rest Period Class

       "All current and former Custody Assistant employees who
       worked as an hourly paid non-exempt employee at the North
       County Correctional Facility for the County of Los
       Angeles, at any time within the three years prior to the
       filing of this initial Complaint through April 10,
       2023 (the opt-in period closure date), who could not take
       rest breaks;"

    -- Bona Fide Meal Period Class

       "All current and former Custody Assistant employees who
       worked as an hourly paid non-exempt employee at the North
       County Correctional Facility for the County of Los
       Angeles, at any time within the three years prior to the
       filing of this initial Complaint through April 10, 2023
       (the opt-in period closure date), who did not get bona
       fide meal periods."

The Plaintiff was employed with the County as a Custody Assistant
at the North County Correctional Facility. Ms. Millstein was not
paid overtime wages that she earned in violation of 29 U.S.C.
section 207. Ms. Millstein was not permitted to take rest breaks in
violation of 29 U.S.C. section 785.18. Finally, Ms. Millstein was
required to work during her meal period in violation of 29 U.S.C.
section 785.19.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated Dec. 12,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HxCFCj
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan Selik, Esq.
          Christine Zaouk, Esq.
          McCATHERN LLP
          523 West Sixth Street, Suite 830
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 225-6150
          Facsimile: (213) 225-6151
          E-mail: eselik@mccathernlaw.com
                  czaouk@mccathernlaw.com

LYFT INC: Order Regarding Class Certification Deadlines Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRIET LOWELL, et al., v.
LYFT, INC., Case No. 7:17-cv-06251-PMH-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Philip M. Halpern entered an order regarding class
certification deadlines:

  -- The trial scheduled for January 17, 2023 is adjourned sine
     die pending resolution of the class certification motion
     pending before the Magistrate Judge.

  -- The remaining deadlines set forth in the Court's November
     7, 2022 Order are likewise adjourned sine dine.

  -- As explained more fully on the record during the
     conference, the Court directs the parties to meet and
     confer regarding the Court's directives and instructions
     concerning their Proposed Joint Pretrial Order and file the
     revised document by January 13, 2023.

  -- The Defendant shall, by December 20, 2022, file a
     document(s) succinctly presenting the elements of the
     burden of proof for each claim for relief and defenses to
     be tried herein, in chart format or as an outline; and
     plaintiffs shall file their document(s) in chart format or
     as an outline by January 13, 2023.

  -- The parties shall, by January 20, 2023, meet and confer and
     file a joint letter, limited to five double-spaced pages,
     concerning the differences, if any, between their
     recitations of the burden of proof associated with each
     claim for relief and defense.

Lyft provides online ridesharing services. The Company offers ride
booking, payment processing, and car transportation services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FuNHWn at no extra charge.[CC]

MARSHALL HOTELS: Class Cert Status Report Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Link v. Marshall Hotels &
Resorts, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00805 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an order granting in part and denying
in part class certification status report as follows:

  -- The parties are directed to file by Feb. 7, 2023 the
     appropriate settlement documentation and dismissal
     documentation.

  -- The deadlines for Plaintiff expert disclosures, the
     Defendants expert disclosures, and any rebuttal expert
     disclosures are stayed until Feb. 7, 2023.

  -- The deadlines for all discovery, class certification
     motion, and dispositive motions remain as previously set.

  -- The Court will re-evaluate the stayed deadlines on
     Feb. 7, 2023, should the parties fail to complete their
     settlement and file appropriate documentation with the
     Court by Feb. 7, 2023.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Marshall Hotels & Resorts operates as a hotel management
company.[CC]

MASTER LOCK: Pan Sues Over Falsely Claimed Secure Lock Boxes
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Pan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. MASTER LOCK COMPANY, LLC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-08943 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2022), is brought seeking to
recover for consumers who have overpaid for lock boxes that Master
Lock falsely claims are suitable for safe and secure outside
storage of house keys and other items.

Master Lock manufactures and sells the two models of push-button
combination lock boxes that are subjects of this lawsuit, the
"5422D Portable Lock Box" (the "5422D") and the "5423D Wall Mount
Lock Box" (the "5423D") (collectively, the "Products"). The
Products are metal boxes with 12 buttons on the front, resembling a
telephone keypad containing the numerals 0-9 as well as the
asterisk and number symbols. The Products differ only insofar as
the 5422D has a shackle, allowing for attachment to a gate or
doorknob, while the 5423D has screw holes instead of a shackle so
that it can be mounted to a wall.

The Products are opened by inputting a user-selected combination
and then depressing a rectangular open switch above the keypad.
Master Lock advertises the Products to consumers who wish to
securely store home entry devices, such as keys or garage door
openers, on the outside of their houses. Master Lock expressly
markets the Products as a better alternative to hiding keys under a
doormat or potted plant.

What Master Lock refuses to tell consumers, though, is that the
Products have a security vulnerability that allows any unauthorized
person to decode and gain access to the Products quickly and
without tools. By applying continuous pressure to the open switch
and then testing each button, any person can identify which buttons
are part of the combination. In fact, the order of the buttons
pressed does not matter; all the unauthorized person needs to do to
gain access is press the correct buttons and open the lock box.

To make matters worse, although the Products' vulnerability to
unauthorized access is not common knowledge among consumers, it is
known to or easily ascertained by burglars or other people seeking
unauthorized access. As a result, the Products are unfit for their
advertised use. The Plaintiff, like all members of the putative
class, either would not have purchased the Products had he known of
the vulnerability or would have only been willing to pay
substantially less. Master Lock has violated California consumer
protection and warranty laws, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Los Angeles County,
California.

Master Lock Company, LLC is a Delaware corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Gubernick, Esq.
          GUBERNICK LAW P.L.L.C.
          10720 W. Indian School Rd., Suite 19, PMB 12
          Phoenix, AZ 85037
          Phone: 623-252-6961
          Email: ben@gubernicklaw.com

               - and -

          David N. Lake, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE
          A Professional Corporation
          16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650
          Encino, CA 91436
          Phone: (818) 788-5100
          Facsimile: (818) 479-9990
          Email: david@lakelawpc.com


MATRIX ABSENCE: Heckle Files Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA HECKLE, v. MATRIX
ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 7:21-cv-01463-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification on her New York Labor
Law (NYLL) claims and appointment of class counsel.

  -- All counsel are directed to appear for a status conference
     on January 31, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 620 at the
     White Plains Courthouse.

  -- By January 24, 2023, the parties are directed to submit

     (i) a joint letter addressing all case management issues
         going forward, including inter alia a proposed schedule
         for the completion of discovery on the merits of
         plaintiff's claims, and

    (ii) a joint proposed claim notice.

  -- The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion.

Accordingly, the Court concludes the plaintiff has met her burden
to show the job duties of the putative class members are largely
consistent such that common questions surrounding exemption will
predominate over individual ones.

The Defendant overstates the degree to which the evidence shows
differences among the proposed class members' job duties or how
TCEs exercise their role. That a senior TCE can approve claims
seeking $1,000 more in STD benefits than a level 2 TCE without
automatic supervisor review, or that TCEs may consult nurse case
managers in deciding whether to approve a claim when the Matrix
Best Practices do not require such consultations, go to the merits
of whether the job function of a TCE involves exercising
independent judgment warranting exemption.

The Plaintiff Erica Heckle brings this purported class action
against defendant Matrix Absence, claiming defendant misclassified
her and other "telephonic claims examiners" as exempt from overtime
requirements under the NYLL and failed to provide proper wage
statements in violation of NYLL Section 196.

The Plaintiff worked as a Telephonic Claims Examiner ("TCE") in
defendant's Hawthorne, New York, office from November 2010 to
November 2020.

Matrix Absence is a third-party administrator that processes
short-term disability ("STD") and leave of absence ("LOA") claims
on behalf of companies that provide disability benefits and paid or
unpaid leave to their employees.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YqB6Mp at no extra charge.[CC]

MATT MARTORELLO: Duggan Seeks to Certify MA Consumer Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA DUGGAN, individually
and on behalf of persons similarly situated, v. MATT MARTORELLO AND
EVENTIDE CREDIT ACQUISITIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-12277-JGD (D.
Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of Massachusetts consumers who made
      payments on void, illegal loans as the result of the
      Defendants' predatory lending enterprise:

      The Class

      "All persons: (1) who executed a loan with Red Rock Tribal
      Lending, LLC or Big Picture Loans, LLC, (2) while
      residents of Massachusetts, (3) where any payment on the
      loan was made on or after October 31, 2014;"

   2. appointing the Plaintiff's counsel of record as class
      counsel; and

   3. appointing the Plaintiff as class representative.

The Plaintiff contends that in this dispute about Defendants'
illegal earnings from a usurious lending scheme, she has met all
the requirements to certify the Class.

Based on data from the national Galloway settlement, data is
currently available for a subset of the class. For the time period
of October 31, 2014, to December 20, 2019, there were 8,404 unique
Class members who had a Massachusetts address and made payments of
principal and/or interest on their loans totaling $23,467,563.35.

The claims arise from the same form loan agreement and turn on
whether the Defendants' uniform efforts to evade state usury laws
constitute a violation of state lending laws, RICO, and unjust
enrichment.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec.. 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ji1zMg
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
          John B. Scofield, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          628 East 9th Street
          Houston TX 77007-1722
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                  cbc@caddellchapman.com
                  aet@caddellchapman.com
                  jbs@caddellchapman.com

                - and -

          John Roddy, Esq.
          Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 439-6730
          Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
          E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com
                  eryan@baileyglasser.com

MAYVENN INC: Court Junks Class Certification in Trim TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCINE TRIM, v. MAYVENN,
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-03917-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine
M. Chesney entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to deny
class certification.

The Northern District of California concludes Trim has not met her
burden under Rule 23(a)(3). Additionally, Mayvenn argues, Trim's
"lack of credibility makes her an inadequate class representative."


In the operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"),
Trim alleges that, although her cellular phone number is registered
on the National Do Not Call Registry ("NDNC Registry"), Mayvenn
nonetheless sent two automated text messages to said number without
her consent.

Trim asserts, on behalf of herself and a putative class, a claim
for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). By
the instant motion, Mayvenn seeks an order denying certification of
the NDNC Registry Class on the asserted ground that Trim is an
improper class representative.

Mayvenn, Inc. provides personal care products. The Company offers
virgin human hair and hair extensions products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uPMnZi at no extra charge.[CC]



MEDICUS HEALTHCARE: Seeks More Time to Object to Conditional Cert
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as James McCarthy,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situation, v. Medicus
Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00668-JL (D.N.H.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting extension of
time to and until January 23, 2023 within which to file its
objection to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice.

On December 9, 2022, the Plaintiff filed its motion for initial
certification. Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(b), the Defendant has 14 days
to file an objection. To permit it sufficient time to formulate a
response, Defendant requests until January 23, 2023 to file their
objection.

Medicus Healthcare delivers medical staffing services to healthcare
facilities and matches providers with exceptional opportunities
nationwide.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec.. 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hysZwP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          James P. Harris, Esq.
          John-Mark Turner, Esq.
          SHEEHAN PHINNEY BASS & GREEN PA
          1000 Elm Street, P.O. Box 3701
          Manchester, NH 03105-3701
          Telephone: (603) 627-8152
          E-mail: jharris@sheehan.com
                  jturner@sheehan.com

                - and -

          Kenneth W. Gage, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 318-6046
          E-mail: kennethgage@paulhastings.com

MILLIMAN INC: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines in Mattson
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNA P. MATTSON, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MILLIMAN,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00037-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order regarding the Joint Status
Report and Discovery Plan submitted by the parties.

The Court sets the following dates and deadlines:

--  Bench Trial Date:                      April 1, 2024

--  Length of Trial:                       5–15 days

--  Discovery on class certification       March 13, 2023
     issues completed by:

--  Any motions related to class           May 11, 2023
     certification must be filed by:

--  Deadline for filing any motion         July 6, 2023
     for leave to amend a pleading
     and for joining additional
     parties:

--  Disclosure of expert testimony         July 25, 2023
     under FRCP 26(a)(2):

--  All motions related to discovery       August 10, 2023
     must be filed by:

--  All remaining discovery                September 8, 2023
     completed by:

Milliman is a firm of consultants and actuaries serving the full
spectrum of business, governmental, and financial organizations.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WkU9WD at no extra charge.[CC]

MY PILLOW: Gaudreau Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gaudreau v. My Pillow,
Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-01899 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge
David A. Baker entered an endorsed order denying as moot motion to
certify class.

The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

My Pillow is an American pillow-manufacturing company based in
Chaska, Minnesota.[CC]




MYXED UP: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Loadholt Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER LOADHOLT v.
MYXED UP CREATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-07708-LJL (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered a case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:

-- Any motion to amend or to join          January 12, 2023
    additional parties shall be filed
    no later than:

-- Initial disclosure is to be             April 5, 2023
    completed no later than:

-- Initial request for production          January 12, 2023
    of documents shall be served by:

-- Interrogatories pursuant to Rule        January 12, 2023
    33.3(a) of the Local Rules of the
    Southern District of New York
    shall be served by:

-- Depositions shall be completed by:      April 5, 2023

-- Request to Admit shall be served        January 12, 2023
    no later than:

-- All All expert discovery, including     May 19, 2023
    disclosures, reports, rebuttal
    reports, production of underlying
    documents, and depositions shall
    be completed by:

-- All discovery shall be completed        May 19,2023
    no later than:

-- Any motion for summary judgment         June 16, 2023
    must be filed no later than:

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YArgI2 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman,Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue,Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712

The Defendant is represented by:

          Peter T. Shapiro, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          77 Water Sreet, Suite 2100
          New York, NY 10005

NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC: Proposed Sched Order Junked in Johnson
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson, et al., v. The
Narragansett Electric Company d/b/a National Grid, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00643 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge John J. Mcconnell, Jr.
entered an order denying the proposed scheduling order by the
parties for class certification determination.

This case is already more than three years old and under the
proposed scheduled class certification would not occur until the
case is 5 years old.

The parties should meet and confer and propose a schedule that has
class certification fully briefed and before the Court no later
than June 30, 2023.

The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.

Narragansett provides utility services. The company distributes,
transmits, and generates electricity.[CC]

NIO INC: S.D. New York Consolidates Saye & Bohonok Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, TEDDY J. SAYE, Plaintiff v. NIO INC., et al.,
Defendants; and TARAS CEGLIA BOHONOK, Plaintiff v. NIO INC., et
al., Defendants, Case Nos. 22-CV-7252 (VSB), 22-CV-7666 (VSB)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York:

   a. grants the motions for consolidation;

   b. grants Dr. Mohammad Siddiqui's motion for appointment as
      lead plaintiff and for approval of lead counsel; and

   c. denies the remaining motions from Javier Rodriguez Sordo,
      Michael Lyon, Ira Zohn, Prakash Sambath, Gary Darland,
      Arthur White, and Juan Herreramoro Gomez for appointment as
      lead plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs bring two securities fraud class action lawsuits
against NIO and certain of its officers and directors. These
actions (collectively, the "NIO Actions") allege that NIO and its
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), as well as the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
promulgated pursuant to the Exchange Act.

On Aug. 25, 2022, Saye filed a class action complaint against NIO,
as well as its CEO Bin Li and its Chief Financial Officer Wei Feng
(collectively, "Individual Defendants"), alleging that NIO and
Individual Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by misleading investors about NIO's
revenue. Essentially, Saye claims that NIO share prices fell after
a Grizzly Research report alleged that NIO had "inflated its net
income by about 95% through sales to a related party, Wuhan Weineng
Battery Asset Co.

The same day that he filed his complaint, Saye published a notice
of the complaint on Business Wire in accordance with the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 77z-1(a)(3)(A)(i). The notice advised putative class
members that they had 60 days from the date of the notice to move
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff of the litigation.

A few weeks later, on Sept. 8, 2022, Plaintiff Taras Ceglia Bohonok
filed a class action complaint against the Defendants. The Bohonok
Complaint is virtually identical to the Saye Complaint, except that
Bohonok alleges that "the Class Period begins on Aug. 20, 2020,
when the Company issued a press release announcing the
establishment of Weineng," whereas Saye alleges that "[t]he Class
Period begins on March 1, 2021," when "NIO announced its fourth
quarter and full year 2020 financial results in a press release."
Each complaint names the exact same Defendants.

Seven plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs have filed motions
requesting consolidation of the NIO Actions, appointment of lead
plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel.

Before Judge Broderick are the following:

       1. Sambath's motion to consolidate the NIO Actions, to
appoint himself as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernstein, LLP as lead counsel.

       2. White's motion to consolidate the NIO Actions, to appoint
himself as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Levi & Korsinsky,
LLP as lead counsel.

       3. Lyon's motion to consolidate the NIO Actions, to appoint
himself as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP as lead counsel.

       4. Darland's motion to consolidate the NIO Actions, to
appoint himself as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP as lead counsel.

       5. Sordo's and Dr. Mohammad Siddiqui's (together, the
Sordo-Siddiqui Group) motion to consolidate the NIO Actions, to
appoint themselves as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Bernstein
Liebhard LLP as lead counsel.

       6. Zohn's motion to consolidate the NIO Actions, to appoint
himself as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Pomerantz LLP as
lead counsel.

       7. Herreramoro's motion to consolidate the NIO Actions, to
appoint himself as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Bragar Eagel
& Squire, P.C. as lead counsel.

In response to these motions, Sambath, Darland, White, and
Herreramoro each filed notices of non-opposition acknowledging that
they do not possess the largest financial interest. On Nov. 7,
2022, Zohn, Lyon, and the Sordo-Siddiqui Group each filed an
opposition to competing motions. On Nov. 14, 2022, Zohn, Lyon, and
the Sordo-Siddiqui Group each filed a reply. The Defendants have
not taken a position on the merits of these motions.

First, Judge Broderick finds that the Bohonok Complaint appears
identical to the Saye Complaint, except for an adjustment to the
class period. The Saye Action and Bohonok Action involve identical
questions of law and fact. All seven movants agree that the actions
should be consolidated, and the Defendants have not filed any
opposition. Judge Broderick finds that consolidation is warranted,
and grants the movants' motions for consolidation. As previously
ordered, within seven days of the appointment of a lead plaintiff,
the parties will file a proposed schedule for any consolidated or
amended complaint, and any answer or motion in response.

Next, Judge Broderick turns the appointment of lead plaintiff. The
notice was published on Aug. 25, 2022, and all movants timely filed
for appointment as lead plaintiff by Oct. 24, 2022. Sambath,
Darland, White, and Herreramoro have each withdrawn from
consideration.Zohn, Lyon, and the Sordo-Siddiqui Group each
maintain they are the presumptive lead plaintiff.

Zohn claims the largest financial loss of $1,980,095. Sordo claims
a financial loss of $998,751.18, and Siddiqui claims a financial
loss of $657,902.32, for a total of $1,656,653.50. Lyon claims a
financial loss of $990,299.65. Each movant argues the other
movants' claimed losses should be discounted.

Judge Broderick opines that given the significant financial losses
and his more than 20 years' investing experience, Dr. Siddiqui will
fairly and adequately protects the interests of the class. Although
Lyon and Zohn have challenged the Sordo-Siddiqui Group, no other
movant has provided any proof that Dr. Siddiqui as an individual
would not be able to "fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the class" or "is subject to unique defenses that render such
plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class."
Accordingly, Dr. Siddiqui should serve as lead plaintiff.

Dr. Siddiqui has selected Bernstein Liebhard. Judge Broderick has
reviewed Dr. Siddiqui's filings in the case, as well as Bernstein
Liebhard's resume, and he finds that Bernstein Liebhard is highly
experienced in securities litigation and is capable of adequately
and effectively representing the class. Dr. Siddiqui's motion that
Bernstein Liebhard be appointed lead counsel of the NIO Action is
granted.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Broderick grants the motions for
consolidation based on the similarity of the NIO Actions. He finds
that Dr. Siddiqui is the presumptive lead plaintiff and no other
movants have rebutted that presumption. Moreover, Dr. Siddiqui has
a substantial financial interest and meets the typicality and
adequacy requirements of Rule 23; therefore, he grants Dr.
Siddiqui's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for
approval of lead counsel. He denies the remaining motions from
Sordo, Lyon, Zohn, Sambath, Darland, White, and Herreramoro for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the
pending motions. As previously ordered, within seven days of this
Order, the parties will file a proposed schedule for any
consolidated or amended complaint, and any answer or motion in
response.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2bdyfk9n from Leagle.com.

Gregory Bradley Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Plaintiff Teddy J. Saye,
Movant Michael Lyon.

Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Thomas Henry
Przybylowski -- tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com -- Jeremy Alan Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY, Counsel
for Plaintiff Taras Ceglia Bohonok, Movant Ira Zohn.

Daniel Patrick Chiplock -- dchiplock@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Movant Prakash
Sambath.

Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, New York,
NY, Counsel for Movant Arthur White.

James Milligan Wilson, Jr -- jwilson@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP (NYC), New York, NY, Counsel for Movant Gary Darland.

Joseph R. Seidman -- Seidman@bernlieb.com -- Bernstein Liebhard,
LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Movants Javier Rodriguez Sordo,
Mohammad Siddiqui.

Melissa Ann Fortunato -- fortunato@bespc.com -- Bragar Eagel &
Squire, P.C., New York, NY Counsel for Juan Herreramoro Gomez.

Scott D. Musoff -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- Judith Flumenbaum --
judy.flumenbaum@skadden.com -- Michael Charles Griffin --
michael.griffin@skadden.com -- Robert Alexander Fumerton --
robert.fumerton@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Defendant NIO Inc.


NORTHERN DYNASTY: Continues to Defend Darish and Hymowitz Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. disclosed in  its Form F-10
Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Darish and Hymowitz putative shareholder
class suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

On December 4 and December 17, 2020, separate putative shareholder
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York regarding the drop in
the price of the Company's stock following the ROD by the USACE
regarding the Pebble Project. These cases are captioned Darish v.
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-05917-ENV-RLM, and Hymowitz v. Northern Dynasty Minerals
Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-06126-PKC-RLM.  

Each of the complaints was filed on behalf of a purported class of
investors who purchased shares of the Company's stock from December
21, 2017, through November 25, 2020, the date the USACE announced
its decision, and seeks damages allegedly caused by violations of
the federal securities laws.  

On March 17, 2021, the two cases were consolidated and a lead
plaintiff and counsel were appointed. A consolidated and amended
complaint was filed in June 2021, naming the Company, the Company's
CEO and the Pebble Partnership's former CEO as defendants.  

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously and has filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on behalf of all defendants.

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. explores for gold, copper, and
molybdenum in Alaska. [BN]


NORTHERN DYNASTY: Continues to Defend Haddad Shareholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. disclosed in  its Form F-10
Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Haddad shareholder class suit in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia.

On December 3, 2020, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and one of its underwriters in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia regarding the decrease in the price of
the Company's stock following the USACE's November 25, 2020
decision regarding the Pebble Project. The case is captioned Haddad
v. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. et al., Case No. VLC-S-S-2012849.
The claim was filed on behalf of a purported class of investors,
wherever they may reside, who acquired common shares of the
Company's stock between December 21, 2017 and November 25, 2020,
and seeks damages for (i) alleged misrepresentations in the
Company's primary market offering documents and continuous
disclosure documents, and (ii) allegedly oppressive conduct.  

The Company has been served the claim and intends to defend itself
vigorously.  

The underwriter has asserted contractual rights of indemnification
against the Company for any loss that the underwriter may incur in
connection with the lawsuit.

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. explores for gold, copper, and
molybdenum in Alaska. [BN]


NORTHERN DYNASTY: Continues to Defend Woo Shareholder Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. disclosed in  its Form F-10
Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Woo shareholder class suit in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia.

On February 17, 2021, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and certain of its underwriters in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia regarding the decrease in the
price of the Company's stock following (i) the USACE's August 24,
2020 announcement that the Pebble Project could not be permitted as
proposed, and (ii) the USACE's November 25, 2020 decision regarding
the Pebble Project. The case is captioned Woo v. Northern Dynasty
Minerals Ltd. et al., Case No. VLC-S-S-211530.  

The claim was filed on behalf of a purported class of investors,
wherever they may reside, who purchased securities of the Company
between June 25, 2020 and November 25, 2020, and seeks damages for
(i) alleged misrepresentations in the Company's primary market
offering documents and continuous disclosure documents, (ii)
allegedly oppressive conduct, (iii) alleged unjust enrichment, and
(iv) negligence.  

The Company has been served and intends to defend itself
vigorously.  

The underwriters have asserted contractual rights of
indemnification against the Company for any loss that they may
incur in connection with the lawsuit.

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. explores for gold, copper, and
molybdenum in Alaska. [BN]

NORTHERN DYNASTY: Pirzada Bid to Discontinue Claim OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. disclosed in  its Form F-10
Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice granted plaintiff's motion to discontinue claim in the
Pirzada shareholder class suit.

On March 5, 2021, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and certain of its underwriters in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding the decrease in the
price of the Company's stock following the USACE's November 25,
2020 decision regarding the Pebble Project. The case is captioned
Pirzada v. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. et al., Case No.
CV-21-00658284-00CP.  

The claim was filed on behalf of a purported class of investors,
wherever they may reside, who acquired securities of the Company
between June 25, 2020 and November 25, 2020, and seeks damages for
(i) alleged misrepresentations in the Company's primary market
offering documents and continuous disclosure documents, (ii)
allegedly oppressive conduct, and (iii) alleged negligence.  

On March 30, 2022, the plaintiff made a motion to discontinue the
claim without costs and the court granted the discontinuance in
April 2022.

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. explores for gold, copper, and
molybdenum in Alaska. [BN]

NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Villafan, et al., Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH VILLAFAN, a single
man; WOLFGANG OLSON, a single man; and JOSH GRAVES, a married but
separated man, v. NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT LLC, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-01616-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their bid for class certification.

The Defendants admit that they have sold over 700 used diesel
trucks to consumers in the class period, which had all or some of
their emission controls removed or altered. The removal,
alteration, deletion, or the use of emission control parts not
certified -- nown as "tampering" -- is illegal in all 50 states,
the lawsuit says.

Importantly, the Defendants also admit that they know tampered
vehicles may not be icensed or registered in jurisdictions outside
of Washington -- thus making them not merchantable. The Defendants
do not disclose those facts to consumers before the purchase of a
vehicle, nor do they disclose any other materially adverse
consequences of purchasing a tampered vehicle, the lawsuit adds.

The result is that each Plaintiff and each member of the Class has
sustained substantial economic damages.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HFoXgy
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE N. BOLIN, JR.
          144 Railroad Ave., Suite No. 308
          24 Edmonds, WA 98020
          Telephone: (425) 582-8165
          Facsimile: (888) 527-2710
          E-mail: eu enebolin@gmail.com

               - and -

          Guy W. Beckettf, Esq.
          BERRY & BECKETTT PLLP
          1708 Bellevue Avenue
          Seattle,  WA  981226
          Telephone: (206) 441-5444
          E-mail: gbeckett@beckettlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

NOVAVAX INC: Faces Sinnathurai Securities Suit Over COVID Vaccine
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Novavax, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that on November 12, 2021,
a Sothinathan Sinnathurai filed a purported securities class action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the
Company and certain members of senior management, captioned
"Sothinathan Sinnathurai v. Novavax, Inc., et al.," Case No.
8:21-cv-02910-TDC.

On January 26, 2022, the court entered an order designating David
Truong, Nuggehalli Balmukund Nandkumar, and Jeffrey Gabbert as
co-lead plaintiffs in the Sinnathurai Action. The co-lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 11,
2022, alleging that the defendants made certain purportedly false
and misleading statements concerning the company's ability to
manufacture the COVID-19 "Novavax" vaccine on a commercial scale
and to secure the vaccine's regulatory approval.

The amended complaint defines the purported class as those
stockholders who purchased the company's securities between
February 24, 2021, and October 19, 2021. On April 25, 2022, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. On June 9, 2022, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on July 11, 2022, the
Company filed a reply brief. The matter is now fully briefed.

Novavax, Inc., together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, is a
biotechnology company based in Maryland.


OUR DREAM PIZZA: Powell Seeks to Certify Delivery Driver Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL POWELL,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. OUR
DREAM PIZZA, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02542-TMC (D.S.C.), the
Plaintiff Russell Powell asks the Court to enter an order:

   A. Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action;

   B. Approving Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent to Join
      and proposed method of distribution including mailing and
      emailing;

   C. Approving the form and content of Exhibits 1–4;

   D. Directing the Defendant to produce the requested contact
      information of each putative collective member in an
      electronically importable and malleable electronic format,
      such as Excel, within seven days after this Court's Order
      is entered;

   E. Allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin on the
      date on which the Defendant produce the collective
      members' names and contact information, in which
      collective members may submit Consents to Join this
      lawsuit as opt-in plaintiffs; and

   F. Awarding costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and grant
      all other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled,
      whether specifically prayed for or not.

The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid Delivery Driver for
Defendant Our Dream Pizza.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover minimum wages for all hours worked,
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act ("SCPWA").

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W6reWA
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR, P.C.
          115 Elk Avenue
          Rock Hill, SC 29730
          Telephone: (803) 328-0898
          E-mail: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com

                - and -

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

PACIFIC GRAIN: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to April 19, 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA L. SALCEDO, v.
PACIFIC GRAIN & FOODS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00640-ADA-SAB (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order granting
stipulated motion to continue hearing on motion to certify class
and on motion to strike.

The Court finds good cause to grant the parties stipulated motion.
Accordingly, pursuant to the agreement of the parties and good
cause appearing:

-- The hearing on Plaintiff's motion         April 19, 2023
    to certify class, currently set
    for February 15, 2023, is continued
    to:

-- The Plaintiff's forthcoming motion        April 19, 2023
    to strike the answer shall be set
    for hearing on:

-- The Plaintiff's forthcoming motion to strike the answer
    shall be filed and served no later than 21 days prior to the
    April 19, 2023 hearing.

-- The Defendant's opposition to both the motion to certify
    class and motion to strike shall be filed no later than 14
    days prior to April 19, 2023 hearing.

-- The Plaintiff's reply briefing shall be filed and served no
    later than 7 days prior to April 19, 2023 hearing.

The Plaintiff initiated this action on May 27, 2022. On November 1,
2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, that is
currently set for hearing on February 15, 2023.

The Defendant then appeared and filed an answer in this action on
November 18, 2022. On November 28, 2022, when continuing the
hearing on the motion to certify, the Court ordered the parties to
file a status report regarding mediation.

On December 9, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to
the continuance of the motion to certify hearing and a potentially
forthcoming motion to strike, in light of a mediation scheduled on
March 20, 2023.

Pacific Grain is a purveyor of dry beans, rice, grains and nut
butters.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iQnLN1 at no extra charge.[CC]


PAPA JOHN'S: Curd Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Communications
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Curd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a PAPA JOHNS, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03185-JRR (D. Md., Dec. 9, 2022), is brought against
Papa Johns for wiretapping the electronic communications of
visitors to its website, www.papajohns.com, in violation of the
Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act and
constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights of website visitors.

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

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

While visiting Papa Johns' website, Plaintiff fell victim to
Defendant's unlawful monitoring, recording, and collection of
Plaintiff's Website Communications with www.papajohns.com.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Papa Johns procures and embeds Session
Replay Code on its website

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

The Plaintiff has visited www.papajohns.com on her computer while
in Maryland.

Papa Johns operates the website www.papajohns.com and is an online
and brick-and-mortar pizza restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th
          Street N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Phone: 202.540.7200
          Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street
          Fourteenth Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 646.357.1100
          Email: snathan@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          111 W. Washington St., Suite 1240
          Chicago IL 60602
          Phone: 312.750.1265
          Email: katrina@lcllp.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: 610.234.6486
          Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com


PASSON & PASSON: King, et al., Seek Conditional Collective Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KING and ANDRIN
JANQUENOUD, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, v. PASSON & PASSON CORP., 229 BLEECKER LLC d/b/a TERRA,
225 WEST BROADWAY CORP d/b/a ATTRAVERSA, GOOD LUCK RIBBON CORP.
d/b/a ARICCIA, 7 WASHINGTON LANE CORP. d/b/a ARIA HELL’S KITCHEN,
228 BLEECKER LLC d/b/a ARIA, BRICIOLA CORP. d/b/a BRICIOLA, 230
BLEECKER CORP. d/b/a COTENNA, 62 CARMINE CORP. d/b/a CODINO, 329
BLEECKER CORP. d/b/a LABORATORIO, ROBERTO PASSON, and TANYA
HIRA-PASSON Case No. 1:22-cv-06060-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion for
conditional collective certification and court facilitation of
notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b)

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 13,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VXGbdC
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PAUL MOSS INSURANCE: Pavelka Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul Moss Insurance
Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Jackson Pavelka, Kaylee Pavelka,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paul
Moss Insurance Agency, LLC d/b/a/ Epiq Insurance Agency, Case No.
1:22-cv-02226 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 9, 2022).

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

Paul Moss Insurance Agency, LLC doing business as Epiq Insurance
Agency -- https://epiqagency.com/ -- offer consumers the ability to
get a fast, comprehensive Home Insurance Quote that can protect
investments.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
          CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, TARANTINO & GAROFOLI-CLEVELAND
          55 Public Square, Ste. 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: (216) 621-8484
          Fax: (216) 771-1632
          Email: sdsimp@climacolaw.com


PERDUE FARMS: Court Narrows Claims in Parker Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER PARKER, v. PERDUE
FARMS, INC., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00268-TES (M.D. Ga.), the
Hon. Judge Tilman E. Self, III entered an order granting in part
and denying in part Defendants' partial motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the Court grants Perdue's Motion as it relates to
Plaintiff's state-law fraud claim (count 5) and his Packers &
Stockyards Act claim (Count 8). Thus, the Court dismisses those
claims.

The Court denies Perdue's Motion as to Plaintiff's other claims.

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Perdue Foods -- the third
largest broiler chicken company in the country -- outsources "the
process of raising birds to broiler growers," like Plaintiff, and
considers them "independent farmers."

In the recruiting process, the Plaintiff alleges that Perdue
promises these farmers "independence and financial success."

However, Plaintiff contends that Perdue controls "virtually every
aspect of [the] growers' operations."

The Plaintiff contends that Perdue requires these farmers to agree
to an exclusive contract -- a Poultry Producer Agreement ("PPA") --
with Perdue, which prohibits any visits to other farms associated
with another integrator and requires construction of their farms in
conformity with specific instructions from Perdue.

Perdue Farms Iproduces poultry products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uIPK4b at no extra charge.[CC]

PERFORMANCE ONE: Bid for Collective Action Cert Tossed as Premature
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRA RICHARDS, ET AL. V.
PERFORMANCE ONE SECURITY, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 4:22-cv-00701-Y
(N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Terry R. Means entered an order denying
as premature motion for collective-action certification.

The parties shall have until February 28, 2023, to engage in
discovery regarding potential class certification and attempt to
reach an agreement regarding the definition of the class and the
terms of the proposed notice to be directed to potential class
members.

The Plaintiffs may refile their class-certification motion after
the completion of this discovery period but no later than March 10,
2023.

The Plaintiffs' complaint contends that Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), by failing to pay them overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week as security
guards.

Performance One is a Security Guard Service, serving Dallas, Fort
Worth and surrounding areas.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BB3n9c at no extra charge.[CC]

PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: More Time to File Class Cert Bids Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDICE PASCHAL and PEDRO
ZARAZUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PERRY'S RESTAURANTS, LTD. et al, Case No.
1:22-cv-00027-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order granting extension of time to file respectively Defendants'
response and Plaintiffs' reply triggered by the filing of such
Motion.

In a Text Order dated November 30, 2022, the Court allowed
Plaintiffs until December 2, 2022 to file their Motion. The
Plaintiffs then timely-filed the Motion on December 2.

According to the Scheduling Order, the Defendants were permitted 30
days (that is, by January 1, 2023) to file their response to the
Motion.

When Defendants learned of the filing of the Motion on December 5,
and also considering the upcoming holiday season, the Defendants'
counsel contacted Plaintiffs' counsel about an extension of time
for Defendants' to file such response.

The Plaintiffs' counsel indicated that they did not oppose such an
extension so long as they could likewise seek an extension of time
by which to file their reply.

Therefore, the parties jointly request that Defendants be allowed
to file their response to the Motion by January 9, 2023; and that
Plaintiffs be allowed to file their reply to that
response by January 26, 2023.

Perry's Restaurants is in the Steak Restaurant business.

A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Dec.. 15, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BOnkcL at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 887-1878
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lionel M. Schooler, Esq.
          Brooke Willard, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER LLP
          1401 McKinney Ave., Suite 1900
          Houston, Texas 77010
          Telephone: (713) 752-4200
          Facsimile: (713) 308-4156
          E-mail: lschooler@jw.com

POINTSBET USA: Seeks Dismissal of Gutman Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC GUTMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. POINTSBET USA
INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02137-SKC (D. Colo.), the Defendants
asks the Court to enter an order dismissing the plaintiff's class
action complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6)
and denying class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

The Defendants contend that Court should dismiss Mr. Gutman's
claims in their entirety.

Finally, pursuant to Rule P. 12(b)(1), the Court should also
dismiss Mr. Gutman's claims to the extent they seek injunctive
relief, as the Complaint fails to plausibly allege that Mr. Gutman
faces a cognizable threat of future harm as a result of the
complained-of conduct, and he therefore lacks Article III standing
to pursue injunctive relief.

The promotional offer Mr. Gutman accepted applied only to his
first, post-Account-opening bet, which he placed on March 30, 2022.
Having already availed himself of the first-bet offer, he cannot go
back in time and do it again. Further, even if Mr. Gutman were
alleging that he intends to (and could) continue accepting and
using PointsBet's Bonus Bet offers going forward, he would still
lack standing to pursue the injunctive relief that he seeks,
because there is no threat that a plaintiff like Mr. Gutman, who is
already aware that Bonus Bet winnings will not include the Bonus
Bet stake itself, could conceivably be "deceived" by those
statements again in the future.

On March 30, 2022, Mr. Gutman, a New York resident, opened his
PointsBet NY sports wagering Account and deposited $500. He used
the promotional code "WELCOME" when he opened his Account, and his
acceptance of that offer entitled him to receive up to $500 in free
bet credits if his first fixed-odds wager lost.


A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VVdttS at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Jacobson
          Catherine E. Kennedy
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
          REATH LLP
          1177 Ave. of the Americas, 41st Fl.
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 248-3140
          E-mail: Jeffrey.Jacobson@faegredrinker.com
                  Catherine.Kennedy@faegredrinker.com

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Pazymino Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAOLA PAZYMINO, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, Defendant, Civ. No. 19-12259 (KM) (ESK) (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin
McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
denies the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Ms. Pazymino, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
filed the putative class action against PRA, a debt collection
company, alleging that it violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., by sending her
collection letters containing settlement and savings offers in
connection with unenforceable debt.

The case arises out of PRA's attempts to collect allegedly
time-barred debt owed by Ms. Pazymino. In July 2014, Ms. Pazymino
defaulted on a debt she owed to "Comenity Bank/Ann Taylor." The
parties agree that upon that default, a cause of action accrued to
enforce the debt. PRA subsequently purchased Ms. Pazymino's debt.

On May 8, 2018, PRA sent Ms. Pazymino a letter attempting to
collect the debt. The letter indicated that she owed a balance of
$555.72 and included a settlement offer, stating that if she paid
PRA $305.65 by June 15, 2018, her account would be considered
"Settled in Full" once the payment posted, saving her $250.07 on
the listed balance. RA sent Ms. Pazymino three more letters, dated
Aug. 14, 2018, Dec. 18, 2018, and March 19, 2019. Each of these
three subsequent letters contained similar savings offers, as well
as the following disclaimer that the law limits how long she can be
sued on a debt.

According to Ms. Pazymino, the first, May 8, 2018 letter violated
the FDCPA, because by then the debt PRA was seeking to collect was
time-barred and therefore unenforceable, and the letter contained
no disclaimer to that effect. She also alleges that the three
subsequent letters violated the FDCPA because they contained
"representations of 'offers' and 'savings' which were false because
the Debt is unenforceable in a court of law." The debt was
time-barred, says Ms. Pazymino, because the written terms of the
underlying credit card agreement chose Delaware law to govern the
transaction, and "Delaware law provides that no action will be
brought after the expiration of 3 years from the accruing of the
cause of action." Based on her theory of the case, her debt was no
longer enforceable three years after her default, i.e., as of July
2017.

PRA asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment because its
enforcement of Ms. Pazymino's debt was subject to New Jersey's
six-year statute of limitations, not Delaware's three-year statute.
It contends that Ms. Pazymino's FDCPA claim therefore fails as a
matter of law because the debt was not time-barred when it sent its
collection letters.

Ms. Pazymino initiated the action on May 7, 2019. On June 3, 2021,
she filed the currently operative pleading, her First Amended Class
Action Complaint and Jury Demand, in which she asserts a claim
against PRA for several alleged violations of the FDCPA. On July 1,
2021, PRA served its Answer to the First Amended Class Action
Complaint.

On Jan. 28, 2022, PRA filed the present motion for summary
judgment, requesting that the Court enters judgment in its favor
and against Ms. Pazymino with respect to the sole count contained
in hers First Amended Class Action Complaint. On March 15, 2022,
Ms. Pazymino filed a brief in opposition to PRA's motion for
summary judgment. On April 4, 2022, PRA filed a reply brief in
support of its motion.

On Dec. 1, 2022, the Court heard oral argument on PRA's summary
judgment motion. On Dec. 8, 2022, at the request of the Court, Ms.
Pazymino submitted further briefing responding to the Defendant's
arguments concerning the application of New Jersey's statute of
limitations to contracts that contain a choice of law provision
selecting a foreign state's substantive law to govern the
agreement. PRA's summary judgment motion is fully briefed and ripe
for decision.

PRA argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because 1) Ms.
Pazymino "failed to produce or otherwise discover the alleged
contract, or the language of any applicable choice of law
provision"; 2) even if the contract did contain the particular
Delaware choice-of-law provision on which she relies, the New
Jersey statute would still govern because the contractual
choice-of-law provision lacks an express reference to Delaware's
statute of limitations; and 3) the New Jersey statute of
limitations applies to Ms. Pazymino's account because PRA was
attempting to collect the debt "under an account stated theory."

Judge McNulty opines that each of PRA's arguments fails. First, the
fact that Ms. Pazymino has not produced the underlying contract is
not grounds for an award of summary judgment. Ms. Pazymino has made
a sufficient threshold showing that her contract contained a
Delaware choice-of-law provision. Second, the statute of
limitations at issue is the one that would apply to a hypothetical
action by PRA to collect the debt. There also remains a genuine
dispute of material fact regarding the underlying contract language
that renders summary judgment inappropriate at this stage. Third,
PRA's final argument is premised on a misunderstanding of what
constitutes an account stated cause of action. And even if PRA did
assert an account stated claim, such a claim would turn, at least
in part, on the same factual determination preventing summary
judgment: whether Ms. Pazymino's contract contained a Delaware
choice-of-law provision.

Because there remains a genuine disputed issue of material fact,
summary judgment is inappropriate, and PRA's motion is denied. An
appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/39fszmdw from Leagle.com.


PP&G INC: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARQUITA BUTLER, ET AL. v.
PP&G, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03084-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon.
Judge Julie R. Rubin entered an order denying as moot the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective
Action and to Facilitate Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b).

The court struck Defendants' responsive pleading as a Rule 37
sanction and directed that the Clerk enter judgment by default.
This action was then referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
on the matter of damages.

PPG is an American Fortune 500 company and global supplier of
paints, coatings, and specialty materials.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ByN78Q at no extra charge.[CC]

PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON: Scheduling Order, Discovery Plan Entered
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVIN GRAINGER, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. PRECISION OF NEW
HAMPTON, INC., Case No.6:22-cv-02043-LTS-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Hon.
Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney entered a scheduling order and discovery
plan as follows:

  -- Initial disclosures:                Dec. 7, 2022

  -- Motion to add parties:              Dec. 30, 2022

  -- Motions to amend pleadings:         Dec. 30, 2022

  -- Plaintiffs' expert(s)               March 31, 2023
     disclosure(s):

  -- The Defendants' expert(s)           May 31, 2023
     disclosure(s):

  -- The Plaintiffs' rebuttal            June 30, 2023
     expert(s) disclosure(s):

  -- Completion of discovery:            Aug. 1, 2023

  -- Dispositive motions:                Sept. 8, 2023

  -- Trial ready date:                   Feb. 5, 2024

  -- Class certification deadlines

     A. Plaintiffs' motion:              Dec. 01, 2022

     B. Defendants' resistance:          Dec. 15, 2022

     C. Plaintiffs' reply:               Dec. 22, 2022

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W2WBku at no extra charge.[CC]

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Class Cert Related Order Entered in Volino
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Volino v. Progressive
Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06243-LGS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order:

  --  Defendants shall file their     December 30, 2022
      Daubert motion by:

  --  The Plaintiffs shall file       January 17, 2023
      their opposition by:

  --  The Defendants shall file       January 20, 2023
      their reply by:

The opening and opposition memoranda of law shall not exceed eight
pages per expert that Defendants seek to preclude -- though the
parties may allocate their pages among experts as they see fit --
and the reply shall not exceed three pages per expert.

The Court does not intend to rule on the admissibility of expert
testimony for purposes other than the present motion for class
certification at this time, and the parties should tailor their
arguments accordingly.

Progressive is an insurance company. The Company provides personal,
automobile, homeowner, boat, renters, business, life, and health
insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PsxSUt at no extra charge.[CC]

PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Bid to Seal Portions of Exhibits OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON DRUMMOND, LEE
WILLIAMS, and YESHONDA DRIGGINS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-04479-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Edward G. Smith entered an order granting the Defendants'
Motion to seal portions of Exhibits to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

The Court also entered an order that the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification and Defendants' Opposition shall be filed under
seal and that ECF 52 and 56 be maintained with redactions.

The court retains the right to allow disclosure of any subject
covered by this stipulation or to modify this stipulation at any
time in the interest of justice.

Progressive Specialty offers property, casualty, life, and health
insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fn9SO3 at no extra charge.[CC]

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parties Seek to File New Class Cert Exhibit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOCORRO MORELAND,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. THE PRUDENTIAL
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Jersey Corporation; PRUCO LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-04336-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and agree to
withdraw administrative motion and to publicly file a substituted
new exhibit to plaintiff's motion for class certification.

In connection with his Motion for Class Certification, the
Plaintiff filed an interim sealed version of his accompanying
Exhibit 6, as well as an associated Administrative Motion to
Consider Whether Another Party's Material.

On December 2, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class
Certification Should Be Sealed.

The Parties have subsequently met and conferred about possible
modifications to allow for a public filing of Exhibit 6 to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

Prudential Insurance provides life and group insurance, investment,
and retirement services.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3USJ2mw at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

                - and -

          Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
          Sarah Ball, Esq.
          WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
          8489 La Mesa Boulevard
          La Mesa, CA 91942
          Telephone: (619) 234-9000
          Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
          E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
                  sball@einsurelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sandra D. Hauser, Esq.
          Leanna M. Anderson, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 882-5000
          Facsimile: (415) 882-0300
          E-mail: sandra.hauser@dentons.com
                  leanna.anderson@dentons.com

                - and -

          Laura Leigh Geist, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
          One Front Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 858-7440
          Facsimile: (415) 858-7599
          E-mail: lgeist@willkie.com

RCI HOSPITALITY: Class Suit Concludes Due to Absence of Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
RCI Hospitality Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Court
concluded a putative securities class suit due to absence of appeal
from plaintiffs.

In May and June 2019, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors in the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder based on alleged materially false and misleading
statements made in the Company's SEC filings and disclosures as
they relate to various alleged transactions by the Company and
management.

The cases were consolidated as In re RCI Hospitality Holdings,
Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841.

In January 2022, the parties engaged in settlement discussions
beginning with a formal mediation on January 13, 2022, which
resulted in an agreement-in-principle to resolve the matter.

On January 24, 2022, a Joint Notice of Settlement was filed.

On April 28, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement
and form of class notice.

On August 12, 2022, the Court issued an order finally approving the
settlement, which was funded by insurance carrier.

No appeal was filed and hence the litigation has concluded.

RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. is a holding company based in
Houston, Texas. The company is into the restaurant business.


RCI HOSPITALITY: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
RCI Hospitality Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself from Stein shareholder derivative suit
in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

On January 21, 2022, Shiva Stein and Kevin McCarty filed a
shareholder derivative action in the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division against former director Nourdean Anakar, Yura
Barabash, former director Steven L. Jenkins, Eric Langan, Luke
Lirot, former CFO Phillip K. Marshall, Elaine J. Martin, Allan
Priaulx, and Travis Reese as defendants, as well as against RCI
Hospitality Holdings, Inc. as nominal defendant. The action, styled
Stein v. Anakar, et al., No. 4:22-mc-00149 (S.D. Tex.), alleges
claims for breach of fiduciary duty based on alleged dissemination
of inaccurate information, alleged failure to maintain internal
controls, and alleged failure to properly manage company property.


This action is in its preliminary phase, and a potential loss
cannot yet be estimated.

These allegations are substantively similar to claims asserted in
the class action and a prior derivative action that was dismissed
in June of 2021.

RCI intends to vigorously defend against the action.

RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. is a holding company based in
Houston, Texas. The company is into the restaurant business.

RECRUITGIGS LLC: Soriano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Recruitgigs LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Dunia Soriano, individually and on behalf
of other persons similarly situated v. Recruitgigs LLC, Samuel Hale
Exchange LLC, Simwon America Corp., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2022-0010399 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov.
10, 2022).

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

RecruitGigs -- https://www.recruitgigs.com/ -- is a company that
specializes in staffing and recruiting for HR management, payroll,
and risk and safety jobs among others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy F Bollinger, Esq.
          MOSS BOLLINGER LLP
          15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403- 5824
          Phone: (866) 535-2994


RINGCENTRAL INC: Faces Reuben Suit Over Violation of Privacy Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that a
class action lawsuit was filed against the company alleging
violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff Meena Reuben filed a complaint against
the Company for a putative class action lawsuit in California
Superior Court for San Mateo County. The complaint alleges claims
on behalf of a class of individuals for whom, while they were in
California, the company allegedly intercepted and recorded
communications between individuals and the company's customers
without the individual's consent, in violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Sections 631 and 632.7.

Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged violation
of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs, and other unspecified amounts of damages. On July 7,
2020, the court granted the parties a stipulation to extend the
time for the company to respond to the Reuben's complaint.

The parties participated in mediation on August 24, 2021. On
September 16, 2021, Reuben filed an amended complaint. The company
filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on October 18, 2021.
Reuben filed her opposition on November 8, 2021, and the Company
filed its reply on November 22, 2021. A hearing was held on January
6, 2022. The court overruled the company’s demurrer and the
parties are now engaged in discovery.

RingCentral, Inc. is a provider of cloud communications, video
meetings, collaboration, and contact center software-as-a-service
solutions.


RIPPLE LABS: OK of Stipulation Modifying Class Cert Briefing Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zakinov et al v. Ripple
Labs, Inc., et al.,Case No. 4:18-cv-06753-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties jointly move for approval of the following stipulation to
extend the briefing schedule on Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification by one week as follows:

  -- Deadline for Defendants to file      February 3, 2023
     their Opposition:

  -- Deadline for Lead Plaintiff to       March 31, 2023
     file his Reply:

RIPPLE LABS is an American technology company which develops the
Ripple payment protocol and exchange network. Originally named
Opencoin and renamed in 2015, the company was founded in 2012 and
is based in San Francisco, California.

A copy of the Parities' motion dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UT6gJm at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Q. Taylor-Copeland, Esq.
          TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-4944
          Facsimile: (619) 566-4341
          E-mail: james@taylorcopelandlaw.com

                - and -

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq.
          Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
          Nicholas N. Spear, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
                  ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com
                  kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
                  nspear@susmangodfrey.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
          Andrew Michaelson, Esq.
          Suzanne E. Nero, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1185 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 556-2100
          Facsimile: (212) 556-2222
          E-mail: dmarshall@kslaw.com
                  amichaelson@kslaw.com
                  snero@kslaw.com

RIPPLE LABS: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zakinov, et al., v. Ripple
Labs, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-06753-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order for approval of the
following stipulation to extend the briefing schedule on Lead
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by one week as follows:

   -- Deadline for Defendants to file      February 3, 2023
      their Opposition:

   -- Deadline for Lead Plaintiff          March 31, 2023
      to file his Reply:

On November 18, 2022, and submitted with it the Expert Report of
Professor Steven P. Feinstein.

The parties have further agreed that the deadline for Lead
Plaintiff's Reply, which is currently due March 24, 2023, will also
be extended by one week.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jaPbO1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Q. Taylor-Copeland, Esq.
          TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-4944
          Facsimile: (619) 566-4341
          E-mail: james@taylorcopelandlaw.com

                - and -

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq.
          Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
          Nicholas N. Spear, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
                  ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com
                  kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
                  nspear@susmangodfrey.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
          Andrew Michaelson, Esq.
          Suzanne E. Nero, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1185 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 556-2100
          Facsimile: (212) 556-2222
          E-mail: dmarshall@kslaw.com
                  amichaelson@kslaw.com
                  snero@kslaw.com

RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Fox Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL FOX, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE RITZ-CARLTON
HOTEL COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-24284-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to
file under seal in referenced to seal material in connection with
reply in support of renewed motion for class certification.

Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(b)(1) and paragraph 18 of the
Stipulation Regarding Treatment of Confidential Discovery
Information approved by the Court in this matter, the Plaintiff
moves for leave to file under seal certain documents and testimony
that has been marked as "confidential" by Defendant The
Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC in this matter.

During the course of discovery, Defendant has marked certain
discovery materials as "Confidential" under the terms of the
Stipulation.

The Plaintiff has previously filed certain of these materials with
this Court under seal in connection with prior briefing and with
his Renewed Motion for Class Certification in this matter,
following the Court's orders permitting such sealed filing.

In connection with his Reply in further support of his Renewed
Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiff makes citation and
argument regarding materials previously proposed to be sealed which
reveals the content of the document(s). Pursuant to the
Stipulation, any party wishing to file confidential material must
file such materials under seal.

The Plaintiff is not familiar with Defendant's basis for
designating any discovery materials as confidential, and takes no
position on the appropriateness of such designation or whether
materials so designated meet applicable standards for filing under
seal, but makes this motion to comply with his obligations under
the Stipulation.
Ritz-Carlton Hotel provides hotel and resort services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BBjVOi at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Marco, Esq.
          SMITH MARCO , P.C.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 546-6539

                - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          David A. Searles, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600

                - and -

          Lewis J. Saul, Esq.
          Edward A. Coleman, Esq.
          LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          29 Howard Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 376-8450

ROB BONTA: Welchen Files Renewed Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY WAYNE WELCHEN, on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. ROB BONTA, in
his official capacity as the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, et
al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00185-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting his renewed motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiff filed his initial motion for class certification
several years ago, contemporaneously with his complaint, on January
29, 2016. In its order ruling on Defendant Harris's Motion --
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification to Dismiss and
Defendant Sacramento County's Motion for a More Definite Statement,
this Court denied as moot Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

Soon after, deadlines in this case were substantially extended in
light of the ongoing litigation in Buffin v. City & Cnty. Of San
Francisco, Case No. 15-cv-04959-YGR (E.D. Cal.) and In re Humphrey,
Cal. 5th 135, 156 (2021).

In his reply brief to Defendant Bonta's opposition to Plaintiff's
motion for partial summary judgment as to liability, the Plaintiff
indicated that he intended to meet and confer with the Defendants'
counsel regarding injunctive relief and class certification, and
that he would brief either or both issues if agreement could not be
reached.

In Sacramento County, an arrestee's liberty before arraignment
hinges on the ability to pay a bail amount set pursuant to the
countywide bail schedule. The governing statutory scheme does not
allow for Defendant Jim Cooper (previously Scott Jones), as Sheriff
of Sacramento County, or Defendant Rob Bonta, as California
Attorney General, to modify an arrestee's bail amount based on any
individualized determination. The consequences of the bail schedule
are clear: wealthy arrestees are set free and poor arrestees remain
in jail.

The Plaintiff Gary Wayne Welchen filed his putative class action in
early 2016 to put an end to this unjust system. On September 22,
2022, this Court ruled on partial summary judgment that the use of
the bail schedule in Sacramento County is unconstitutional.

On January 29, 2016, the day that his putative class action
complaint and motion for class certification were filed, Plaintiff
was arrested and charged with second-degree burglary.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec.. 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BOnm4n
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
          400 7th Street NW, Suite 602
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Telephone: (202) 505-2058
          E-mail: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org

ROBLOX CORP: Matlick Files Shareholder Suit in California Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roblox Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that a
class action lawsuit was filed against the company alleging
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

On March 9, 2022, an alleged shareholder filed a putative
securities class action against the Company and certain of its
executives and directors, alleging violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Act, in connection with the registration statement for
the company's direct listing.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Mateo, and is captioned "Matlick v. Roblox Corporation, et
al.," Case No. 22-CIV-01038. The complaint sought damages and
attorneys' fees, as well as other relief. The company filed a
motion objecting to the choice of forum, noting that the proper
venue for this matter is the federal court.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the case on June 10, 2022,
based on the venue selection provision in the company's bylaws. The
parties stipulated a dismissal of the Superior Court case, and the
matter was dismissed on August 2, 2022, but the company anticipates
that the shareholder will refile this action in federal court.

Roblox Corporation is a video game developer based in California.


ROCK PIERCE: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Sur-Reply in Rowan
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN ROWAN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROCK PIERCE, an individual, Case No. 3:20-cv-01648-RAM (D.P.R.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
leave to file sur-reply to reply in support of motion for class
certification.

On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Reply in Support of Motion
for Class Certification.

In the Reply, Plaintiff makes new arguments regarding the different
requirements for class certification and how Plaintiff has
satisfied them. These new arguments in the Reply merit a response
from Pierce.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UXlOvE at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ramon Dapena, Esq.
          Iván J. Lladó, Esq.
          MORELL CARTAGENA
          & DAPENA
          PO Box 13399
          San Juan, PR 00908
          Telephone: (787) 723-1233
          Facsimile: (787) 723-8763
          E-mail: ramon.dapena @mbcdlaw.com
                  ivan.llado@mbcdlaw.com

                - and -

          Ashley L. Shively, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          50 California Street, Suite 2800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-743-6900
          Facsimile: 415-743-6910
          E-mail: ashley.shively@hklaw.com

ROLLS-ROYCE MARINE: Case Management Order Entered in Bruner Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK BRUNER individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ROLLS-ROYCE MARINE
NORTH AMERICA INC. a Massachusetts Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-00203-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Bradley W. Rath
entered an case management order as follows:

  -- Jury Trial:                        October 7, 2024

  -- Pretrial conference:               Sept. 17-19, 2024

  -- All discovery must be              April 8, 2024
     completed by:

  -- Motions for joinder of             March 1, 2023
     parties or amendments to
     the pleadings must be
     filed by:

  -- The parties' experts must
     be designated by the
     following dates

                  Plaintiff(s):         November 2, 2023

                  Defendant(s):         December 4, 2023

  -- All dispositive motions            April 15, 2024
     and Daubert-type motions
     challenging another party's
     expert must be filed by:

  -- A Settlement conference is         September 28, 2023
     set on:

Rolls-Royce Marine North America Inc provides power systems,
engines, and parts distribution and installation services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WhHiEv at no extra charge.[CC]

SAKS FIFTH: General Pretrial Management Entered in Henderson
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONIQUE T. HENDERSON, v.
SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, INC.,Case No. 1:22-cv-09925-AT-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general
pretrial management as follows:

  1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery
     must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of
     discovery set by the Court.

  2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
     discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
     for such an application arises and must comply with Local
     Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's
     Individual Practices.

  3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
     conferences are not required, but may be requested where
     counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court
     may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.

  4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
     proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to
     extend a deadline must be made in writing and in
     compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual
     Practices.

  5. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual
     Practices, letters and letter-motions are limited to four
     pages, exclusive of attachments. Courtesy copies of letters
     and letter-motions filed via ECF are required only if the
     filing contains voluminous attachments.

Saks Fifth was founded in 1986. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of general lines of apparel such as suits,
coats, dresses, and home furnishings.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YpCjDC at no extra charge.[CC]

SHELBY COUNTY, TN: Denial of Consent Decree Termination Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FAVIAN BUSBY and MICHAEL EDGINGTON, on their own
behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Petitioners-Appellees v. FLOYD BONNER, JR., in his official
capacity as the Shelby County Sheriff; SHELBY COUNTY, SHERIFF'S
OFFICE, Respondents-Appellants, Case No. 21-5853 (6th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the denial of
the Respondents-Appellants' motion to terminate a consent decree
that imposed various obligations on the Shelby County Jail
regarding its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Petitioner-Detainees initiated this action by petitioning for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 and filing
a class-action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Named Petitioners Busby and Edgington, seeking to represent a class
of "all current and future medically vulnerable pretrial detainees
held at the Jail who, according to the CDC, are at high risk of
severe infection or death from COVID-19," asked the district court
to order their immediate release from the Jail and for other
relief. They asserted claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for
unconstitutional punishment and unconstitutional confinement, and
under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act for disability discrimination.
Concurrently, they moved for a temporary restraining order
directing, among other things, their immediate release.

The district court certified a class and subclass of medically
vulnerable and disabled individuals held pretrial at the Jail who
are at an increased risk of serious injury or death from COVID-19.
But it denied the Petitioners' motion for temporary restraining
order, finding that they had failed to show a likelihood of success
on the merits.

After extensive discovery and three days of mediation, the parties
settled the case and entered into the consent decree at issue in
this appeal. The consent decree requires the Jail to comply with
various inspection and reporting requirements; maintain safe
ventilation and air quality; implement various testing, isolation,
and quarantine protocols; provide hygiene, personal protective
equipment, and vaccines; and implement social-distancing measures.

The consent decree requires the Jail to provide a monthly report to
a court-appointed independent inspector until the consent decree
terminates. If the report contains any recommendations, the Jail
must, within 14 days of receiving the report, either implement the
recommendations or explain why, despite its best efforts, it cannot
or will not adopt the recommendations.

The consent decree also requires the Jail to offer a test to all
detainees and staff who exhibit COVID-19 symptoms. If a detainee or
staff member tests positive, the Jail must perform contact tracing,
and any detainee who tests positive must be isolated according to
CDC guidelines. Finally, the Jail must provide personal protective
equipment and cleaning agents to detainees and implement any
social-distancing-related recommendations made by the independent
inspector unless the Jail gives specific reasons for its inability
or unwillingness to do so.

In addition to these substantive requirements, the consent decree
includes provisions related to the enforcement and modification of
the consent decree, as well as a confidentiality provision.

The district court approved and entered the consent decree on April
12, 2021. Around two months later, the Respondents moved to
terminate it. They argued that the Jail had satisfied the consent
decree's requirements for termination, having offered and
administered a vaccine to all eligible detainees and provided
educational materials and non-punitive incentives to take the
vaccine.

After conducting a two-day evidentiary hearing on August 6, and 9,
2021, the district court denied the Respondents' motion to
terminate. It determined that the Respondents failed to meet their
burden of demonstrating the Jail's compliance with the requirement
that it offer and, if accepted, administer a COVID-19 vaccine to
all detainees housed at the Jail for a period of more than fourteen
days. Accordingly, the court determined that it was left with a
meaningful dispute about whether the Jail has complied with the
vaccination requirement.

The district court also held that the Respondents failed to meet
their burden of demonstrating the Jail's compliance with the
consent decree's educational-materials requirement. Finally, with
respect to the requirement that the Jail provide detainees with
non-punitive incentives to take the vaccine, ir determined that the
detainees "have created disputes about whether incentives have been
offered to every detainee who has been housed at the Jail for more
than 14 days."

The Respondents timely appealed and sought a stay order or, in the
alternative, to expedite the appeal. The Sixth Circuit denied the
motion for stay and granted the unopposed alternative request to
expedite briefing.

First, the Respondents argue that under the PLRA, prospective
relief can extend no further than necessary to correct the
violation of the Federal right, and that the district court refused
to heed that requirement in ruling on its motion to terminate,
instead applying a broad interpretation of Paragraph 28 that
violates the PLRA and contradicts the parties' intentions as
reflected within the consent decree.

The Sixth Circuit holds that because the Respondents' challenge to
the district court's interpretation of the consent decree raises a
legal question about a decree that the district court itself
oversaw and approved, it applies a deferential de novo standard of
review. And, because the Respondents' challenge to the district
court's determination that they failed to satisfy the three
requirements for termination in Paragraph 28 is a quarrel with the
district court's factual findings, it reviews that challenge for
clear error.

The Sixth Circuit finds that the Jail's vaccine-education efforts
must be reasonable under the circumstances of the moment. Just as
compliance with the vaccination requirement cannot be determined
based solely on vaccine acceptance, the same is true of the
incentives program. As with the vaccination program, the overall
vaccination rate could potentially shed light on whether the Jail's
efforts to educate and incentivize the detainee population have
satisfied the minimum threshold of reasonableness. But the ultimate
question is whether the Jail has reasonably satisfied the
requirements of Paragraph 28.

The Sixth Circuit now turns to the district court's determination
that the Respondents failed to show compliance with the consent
decree's requirements. The district court reached that conclusion
after hearing extensive witness testimony over the course of a
two-day evidentiary hearing.

Because the district court's factual findings were not clearly
erroneous, the Sixth Circuit affirms. It finds that with "little to
go on" beyond Fields' conclusory assertions, the district court did
not clearly err in finding that Respondents failed to demonstrate
the Jail's compliance with Paragraph 28's vaccine termination
provision. It also finds that the district court did not clearly
err in finding that the Respondents failed to demonstrate the
Jail's compliance with Paragraph 28's educational-materials
requirement. Lastly, it finds that the district court did not
clearly err in holding that the Jail failed to satisfy Paragraph
28's non-punitive incentives requirement.

Ultimately, the district court denied Respondents' motion to
terminate due to a failure of proofs. Critical to its decision was
the Jail's failure to maintain complete and accurate records of its
efforts to achieve compliance with Paragraph 28's requirements. The
Sixth Circuit finds no basis to disturb those factual findings on
appeal. It will not lock the Respondents in forever for
recordkeeping failures or a short lapse in vaccination offerings.
But termination of the consent decree requires more than currently
exists in the record.

Although its decision means that the consent decree will continue
to remain in effect, the Sixth Circuit says the Respondents may
return to the district court and move for termination once they
have gathered sufficient evidence of the Jail's compliance with the
decree's termination requirements.

For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit affirms the district court's
denial of the Respondents' motion to terminate the consent decree.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/z48hctxm from Leagle.com.


STRATA SKIN SCIENCES: Faces Labor Suit in California Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Strata Skin Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that a
class action was filed against the company alleging violation of
the California Labor Code.

On April 1, 2022, a proposed representative class action under
California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego against the
Company and an employment agency which provided the Company with
temporary employees. The complaint alleges various violations of
the California Labor Code, including California's wage and hour
laws, relating to current and former non-exempt employees of the
company.

The complaint seeks class status and payments for allegedly unpaid
compensation and attorney's fees. In a related matter, the
attorneys in this matter and the proposed class representative, in
a letter dated March 12, 2022, to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency made nearly identical claims seeking
the right to pursue a PAGA action against the Company and the
employment agency.

On or about May 16, 2022, the plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint adding a PAGA claim to the action. On or about June 2,
2022, the plaintiff filed an Application to Dismiss Class and
Individual Claim without prejudice, in an attempt to pursue a
PAGA-only complaint. On or about June 30, 2022, the parties entered
into a stipulation to allow the plaintiff to file a Second Amended
Complaint to clarify the PAGA claim and to stay the pending action
to allow an attempt at resolution at a mediation scheduled for
February 23, 2023.

STRATA Skin Sciences, Inc. is a medical technology company in
dermatology based in Pennsylvania.


SUNPATH LTD.: Smith TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUTH SMITH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNPATH, LTD., a
Massachusetts corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00081-LMB-WEF (E.D.
Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the
following proposed class of similarly situated individuals:

    "All persons who either reside in Virginia or who have
    telephone numbers with a Virginia area code, who (1) on or
    after May 14, 2018 through December 31, 2021; (2) had a
    number registered on the national Do Not Call Registry for
    at least 31days; (3) received at least one call placed by
    Chukran Management Group, LLC d/b/a American Protection
    Corp.; (4) that is reflected in the records produced by
    Five9 Inc, Inc."

Sunpath is the administrator of Vehicle Service Contracts
nationwide.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uTLj6r
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis J. Driscoll, Jr., Esq.
          DRISCOLL LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          4669 South Blvd., Suite 107
          Virginia Beach, VA 23452
          Telephone: (757) 321-0054
          Facsimile: (757) 321-4020
          E-mail: frank@driscolllawoffice.com

                - and -

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

SYMETRA LIFE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Davis Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS E. DAVIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-00533-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon, Judge Tana Lin entered an
order granting stipulation and joint motion to modify scheduling
order as follows:

              Event                         Deadline

-- All motions related to class         April 17, 2023
    discovery must be filed by
    the date:

-- All motions related to class         May 12, 2023
    discovery must be noted on
    the motion calendar no later
    than  the Friday before
    discovery  closes pursuant
    to LCR 7(d) or  LCR 37(a)(2):

-- Class Discovery completed by         May 14, 2023
    this date:

-- Deadline to file Plaintiff's         June 15, 2023
    motion for class certification
    and class expert disclosure:

-- Deadline for amended pleadings:      June 15, 2023

-- Deadline to file Defendant's         August 14, 2023
    opposition to Plaintiff's motion
    for class certification and
    any objection to Plaintiff's
    experts:

-- Deadline to file Plaintiff's reply   Sept. 29, 2023
    brief in support of class
    certification motion and any
    objection  to Defendant's experts:

-- Settlement Conference, if            Oct. 31, 2023
    mediation has been requested
    by the parties per LCR 39.1,
    held no later than:

All other case deadlines, including expert discovery cutoff, last
day to file dispositive motion, and trial date are hereby vacated
and will be determined after the Court's issuance of its decision
on plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Court says.

Symetra Life offers annuities, disability, medical, accidental, and
life insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iZiUcm at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206)682-2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  rsolomon@tousley.com

                - and -

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          David A. Hickey, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road Ste. 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816)714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  perkins@stuevesiegel.com
                  lange@stuevesiegel.com
                  hickey@stuevesiegel.com

                - and -

          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
          4520 Main Street Ste. 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 561-6500
          Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
          E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
                  mlytle@millerschirger.com
                  jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Laura Geist, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 858-7400
          Facsimile: (415) 858-7599
          E-mail: lgeist@willkie.com


                - and -

          Medora A. Marisseau, Esq.
          KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
          701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 223-1313
          Facsimile: (206) 682-7100
          E-mail: mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com

TCP HOT: Rider to Class Settlement Deal in Delcid Initially OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OTTO DELCID, LUZ ROMAN,
MINA KALLAMNI, MARY MOLINA, CARLO GARCIA, AND ANDREA FAHEY, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TCP HOT
ACQUISITION LLC and IDELLE LABS, LTD., Case No. 1:21-cv-09569-DLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered an order granting preliminary
approval of rider to class action settlement agreement nunc pro
tunc.

On Dec. 2, 2022, the Parties excuted a Rider to the Settlement
Agreement for the sole purpose of adding one product, Brut Classic
Deodorant Aerosol (10 oz) (UPC 00827755070047); to the definition
of "Covered Products." The Rider also attached amended notices with
the sole change being the addition of the one product and to make
clear antiperspirant and deodorant products are included in the
Covered Products and amends the class definition in the operative
complaint to conform to the Settlement Class definition.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fwwmwc at no extra charge.[CC]

TEAM ENTERPRISES: Cipolla Seeks OK of Renewed Class Status Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELICIA CIPOLLA, ALEXIS
WOOD, BERNADETTE BLANCHARD, and SHIRIN LESSAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TEAM ENTERPRISES, LLC;
NEW TEAM LLC, doing business as TEAM ENTERPRISES, Case No.
3:18-cv-06867-WHA (N.D. Cal.),  the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their renewed motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiffs seek an order:

   1. Certifying a class and subclasses pursuant to Federal Rule
      of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3);

   2. Authorizing notice be sent to all current and former
      employees of Team Enterprises, LLC and New Team, LLC in
      California with the title "promotional specialist," or the
      functional equivalent however titled, who worked at any
      time from November 13, 2014 through the present; and,

   3. Requiring the Defendants to produce a computer readable
      data file containing the names, last known residence
      address, last known telephone numbers, last known cell
      phone numbers, last known email addresses and social
      security numbers of all such potential class members so
      that notice may be implemented.

The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant certification to bring
all the parties before this Court thereby putting the onus on
Defendants to decide if they will actually move to compel
arbitration.

The claims at issue are basic wage claims such as minimum wage,
meal/rest breaks and overtime which are afforded fundamental
protections.

The Plaintiffs' theories of liability are amenable to class
treatment because they are predicated on facial legal challenges to
Defendants Team Enterprises, LLC's and New Team, LLC's statewide,
uniform policies and practices which raise predominant common
questions of fact and law that will yield common answers based on
common proof. The Plaintiffs' theories of liability and
corresponding subclasses are:

   -- Global Class

      "Current and former promotional specialists of the
      Defendants who worked at any time in California from
      November 13, 2014 through entry of judgment in this
      action;"

   -- Off-the-Clock Theory (Off-the-Clock Subclass)

      The Defendants maintain a class-wide policy and practice
      of requiring promotional specialists to work off-the-clock
      without compensation;

   -- Meal/Rest Break Theory (Meal/Rest Break Subclass)

      The Defendants maintain a class-wide policy and practice
      of failing to provide meal and rest breaks and failing
      to pay meal and rest break premiums for non-compliant meal
      and rest breaks;

   -- Overtime Theory (Overtime Subclass):

      The Defendants maintain a class-side policy and practice
      of failing to pay overtime compensation at the premium
      rate and fail to calculate the premium rate based in the
      regular rate;

   -- Expense Reimbursement Theory (Expense Subclass)

      The Defendants maintain a policy and practice of failing
      reimburse promotional specialists for reasonable and
      necessary business expenses.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j6juoU at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
          George R. Nemiroff, Esq.
          WYNNE LAW FIRM
          80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 461-6400
          Facsimile: (415) 461-3900
          E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
                  gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com

                - and -

          Bryan J. McCormack, Esq.
          MCCORMACK LAW FIRM
          1299 4th Street, Suite 505A
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 925-5161
          Facsimile: (415) 651-7837
          E-mail: bryan@bmcclaw.com

TG THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit Over Leukemia Meds
---------------------------------------------------------
TG Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2022, that in
July 2022, a putative securities class action complaint was filed
in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and two of its officers, purportedly on behalf
of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired TG
Therapeutics common stock between January 15, 2020, and May 31,
2022.

The case is captioned "Shapiro v. TG Therapeutics, Inc., et al.,"
Case No. 1:22-cv-06106. The complaint alleges that the company and
the named officers violated the federal securities laws by
allegedly making materially false and misleading statements
throughout the class period concerning the company's business and
operations relating to its treatment for patients with chronic
lymphocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and seeks monetary
damages.

TG Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company based in New
York.


THOMSON REUTERS: Brooks, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAT BROOKS and RASHEED
SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION, Case No.
3:21-cv-01418-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a hybrid (b)(2) and (b)(3) class or, in the
      alternative, certify both claims for class treatment
      pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3):

      "All persons who, during the limitations period, both
      resided in the state of California and whose information
      Thomson Reuters made available for sale through CLEAR
      without their consent;"

      Excluded from the class are officers and directors of
      Thomson Reuters, class counsel, the judicial officers
      presiding over this action, and the members of their
      immediate family and judicial staff;

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz
      as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Gibbs Law Group and Cohen Milstein Sellers &
      Toll as class counsel.

Because Californians are unlikely to pursue these claims
individually, and Plaintiffs' claims are particularly well-suited
to class adjudication, the Court should certify the class, the
Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs filed this case to stop Thomson Reuters from
violating the rights of Californians to control the use of their
own personal information.

Thomson Reuters is a provider of news and information services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WpTaEO
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Andre M. Mura, Esq.
          Amy M. Zeman, Esq.
          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          Ezekiel S. Wald, Esq.
          Hanne Jensen, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  amm@classlawgroup.com
                  amz@classlawgroup.com
                  mht@classlawgroup.com
                  zsw@classlawgroup.com
                  hj@classlawgroup.com

                - and -

          Geoffrey A. Graber, Esq.
          Karina G. Puttieva, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
                  kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com

TRANS UNION: Class Cert. Bids Must be Filed by February 15, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY CHRISTIAN, et al.,
v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02253-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg entered an order that:

   1. All fact discovery shall be      September 1, 2023
      completed by:

   2. The Plaintiffs' expert           September 15, 2023
      reports are due no later
      than:

   3. The Defendant's expert           November 3, 2023
      reports are due no later
      than:

   4. Rebuttal reports are due         December 22, 2023
      no later than:

   5. Expert discovery shall be        February 1, 2024
      completed no later than:

   6. Motions for class                February 15, 2024
      certification and related
      Daubert motions shall be
      filed no later than:

   7. Responses to motions for         March 15, 2024
      class certification shall
      be filed no later than:

   8. Reply briefs on class            April 5, 2024
      certification shall be
      filed no later than:

Transunion offers total credit protection all in one place from
credit score, credit report and credit alert.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uVn3Rj at no extra charge.[CC]

TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Phang Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNG M. PHAN,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying his proposed Class, appointing him as
Class Representative, and appointing Nicholas & Tomasevic as well
as Winters & Associates as Class Counsel:

   -- The Class

      "All owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured,
      of Defendant's individual life insurance policies issued
      in California before 2013 that Defendant lapsed or
      terminated for the non-payment of premium in or after 2013
      without first complying with all the requirements of
      Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72."

   -- The Elder Abuse Sub-Class

      "All members of the Class who were also 65 years of age or
      older at the time their policy lapsed or terminated."

In this action, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to
comply with California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and
10113.72 (collectively the "Statutes").

In this Motion, the Plaintiff asserts that class certification is
appropriate under Federal Rule of 10 Civil Procedure 23(a)
because:

    (1) the Class that Plaintiff seeks to certify is so numerous
        that joinder of all members is impracticable;

    (2) there are questions and answers of law or fact common to
        class members; and

    (3) the claims of the representative Plaintiff are typical
        of the claims of the Class she seeks to represent.

Transamerica Premier offers accidental and health insurance,
annuity, and single premium insurance plans.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 9,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W8l5tb
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19 th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

                - and -

          Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
          Sarah Ball, Esq.
          WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
          8489 La Mesa Boulevard
          La Mesa, CA 91942
          Telephone: (619) 234-9000
          Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
          E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
                  sball@einsurelaw.com

TRUE STAR: Stipulation on Class Certification OK'd in Donica
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH DONICA and PAMELA
CRAVEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and BRANDON STEPHENS, DAVID SPIRES, and LAVERNE SPIRES,
individually, v. TRUE STAR CAPITAL, LLC, BRANT GREATHOUSE, and CARL
MOORE, Case No. 7:22-cv-00173-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Ronald C. Griffin entered an order granting joint stipulation
regarding class certification and notice to class members:

        DEADLINE                              SUBJECT

  14 Days from Order Approving         Defendants produce a list  

  Notice to Potential Class            of the members of the
  Members                              proposed collective in an
                                       electronic, editable
                                       format.

  60 Days from Defendants'             The potential opt-ins
  production of the list of            will receive notice and
  potential opt-ins                    file consents to join
                                       this lawsuit.

On August 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs Sarah Donica and Pamela Craven
filed this suit as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

On October 25, 2022 the Court held a Rule 16 Conference via Zoom
where a discussion was held regarding the class Plaintiffs were
seeking to represent along with other topics relevant to FLSA
collective actions.

In accordance with that discussion, on December 1, 2022, the
Parties filed the instant Joint Stipulation wherein "[t]he
Parties stipulate for the purposes of class certification and
notice only, to an opt-in class as follows":

   "All current and former salaried employees who were paid a
   salary of less than $684 per week after January 1, 2020, or
   less than $455 per week before January 1, 2020, since August
   9, 2019, who worked at one or more of the following
   locations:

     -- Northtown Estates Mobile Home Community – Amarillo,

     -- Texas Pleasant Hills Mobile Home Community – Abilene,

     -- Texas Oakridge Estates Mobile Home Community – Abilene,
        and

     -- Texas Sweetwater Mobile Home Community – Sweetwater,
        Texas.

True Star is a real estate investment company that acquires
manufactured housing communities and offers returns on
investments.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iNO7PI  at no extra charge.[CC]

ULTIMATE CARE: Cruz Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------
Mayra Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ultimate Care, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07520 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 12, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other
damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendant knowingly, deliberately, and voluntarily failed to
pay its employees for all hours worked over forty in a workweek at
the federal and state mandated overtime rate. The Plaintiff
regularly worked hours in excess of 40 hours per week without
receiving overtime compensation as required by federal and New York
law. The Defendant regularly assigns home care aides to work 24
hour "sleep-in" shifts. During such shifts, a home care aide is
required to be present in the patient's home for a full 24-hour
period. The Plaintiff worked overtime (i.e., more than 40 hours per
week) for the Defendant every week during the relevant time period.
In fact, the Plaintiff worked 24-hour daily shifts, 4 days a week.

Accordingly, the Defendant knew that the Plaintiff had to work
extremely long hours--well over 40 each week--to complete their
assigned work but were not paid overtime wages. The Defendant did
not pay the Plaintiff any additional pay for overtime hours that
she worked during the relevant time period. Instead, the Defendant
paid the Plaintiff her hourly rate (i.e., "straight time") for each
work hour worked, including his overtime hours. Additionally, the
Defendant only paid Plaintiff thirteen hours for each 24-hour
overnight shift. However, during these 24-hour shifts the Plaintiff
was not receiving three one-hour uninterrupted meal breaks, and the
Plaintiff was not receiving an eight-hour sleep break that included
at least five hours of uninterrupted sleep, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former home health aide who was employed by the
Defendant who worked for the Defendant from the end of the year
2016 until April 6, 2020.

Ultimate Care is an "Enterprise engaged in the operation of an
institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged or
the mentally ill or defective."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel I. Schlade, Esq.
          JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, #300
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Phone: 773-550-3775
          Email: dschlade@justicialaboral.com
                 danschlade@gmail.com

UMB BANK: Case Management Order Entered in Island Farm Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISLAND FARMS, LLC, PORTER
PLANTING COMPANY PARTNERSHIP, and WYATT FARM PARTNERSHIP, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UMB BANK, N.A.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00721-HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge
LaKeysha Greer Isaac entered an case management order:

  --  Alternative Dispute Resolution

      At this time this Case Management Order is offered, it
      does not appear that alternative dispute resolution
      techniques will be used in this civil action.

  --  Consent to trial by United States Magistrate Judge.

      The parties do not consent to trial by a United States
      Magistrate Judge.

  --  Disclosure

      A. The pre-discovery disclosure requirements of
         L.U.Civ.R.26(a)(1) have been complied with fully.

  --  Discovery provisions and limitations

      A. Interrogatories are limited to 30 succinct questions to
         each party.

      B. Requests for Production are limited to 35.

      C. Requests for Admissions are limited to 50.

      D. Depositions are limited to the parties, necessary third
         parties, experts, and no more than 15 fact witnesses
         per party without additional approval of the court.

  --  Scheduling Deadlines

      A. Motions for joinders of the           Feb. 1, 2023
         parties, amendments to the
         pleadings, or amended
         complaints must be filed by:


      B. The parties' experts for
         class certification issues,
         if any, shall be designated
         by the following dates:

         -- Plaintiff(s):                      Feb. 15, 2023

         -- Defendant:                         March 31, 2023

      C. All discovery related to              June 1, 2023.
         class certification issues
         shall be completed by:

      D. Any motions challenging               May 1, 2023
         experts for class
         certification filed by:

      E. The Plaintiffs' Motion to             May 10, 2023
         Certify Class filed by:

      F. The Defendants' Opposition            June 10, 2023
         to Motion to Certify Class
         filed by:

      G. The Plaintiffs' Reply in              June 30, 2023
         Support of Motion to Certify
         Class filed by:

UMB Bank provides financial services for individuals and
institutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec.. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jdtPQ2 at no extra charge.[CC]

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Court Sets Class Cert Deadlnes in Brown
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown, et al., v. The
Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Case No.
2:19-cv-02020 (D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Eric I. Long entered an
order setting class certification deadlines:

  -- Although some of the intervening dates were extended, the
     Order required within 14 days after the Court rules on any
     motion for class certification, the parties shall meet and
     confer, then propose an amended schedule to the Court for
     any remaining outstanding discovery and dispositive
     motions.

  -- The Court entered its Order denying class certification on
     December 9, 2022. The parties proposed schedule for
     remaining discovery and dispositive motions is due on or
     before December 24, 2022.

The nature of suit states civil rights -- job discrimination.

The University of Illinois is a public land-grant research
university in Illinois in the twin cities of Champaign and
Urbana.[CC]

VI-JON LLC: 9th Cir. Partly Reverses Dismissal of Moreno Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY MORENO, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VI-JON, LLC.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-56370 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses in part and vacates in part
the district court's dismissal of Moreno's class action suit
against Vi-Jon.

Moreno appeals the dismissal of a class action suit against Vi-Jon,
a manufacturer of common hand sanitizers. Moreno sought
certification of a class of California consumers, alleging false or
deceptive advertising and related claims. Vi-Jon moved to dismiss
for lack of standing and failure to state a claim under Rules
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
district court granted both motions.

The Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's order granting
dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), vacates the order granting
12(b)(6) dismissal, and grants Moreno leave to file a third amended
complaint.

The district court granted Vi-Jon's motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing and subject-matter
jurisdiction, holding Moreno "only pled a speculative, conjectural
and hypothetical injury."

The Ninth Circuit finds that Moreno adequately pleaded economic
injury. He alleged that he wouldn't have purchased or paid as much
for Vi-Jon's products if he had known the truth about their
effectiveness. This, it says, is sufficient for an Article III
injury. It thus reverses the district court's Rule 12(b)(1)
ruling.

The district court also granted Vi-Jon's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). At oral argument,
responses to the panel's questions indicated that Moreno's
complaint could be amended such that it would potentially survive
12(b)(6) dismissal. For example, the parties disagree about whether
the complaint adequately alleges falsity as to the hand sanitizers'
ability to kill only germs commonly found on hands, as opposed to
all germs. The district court read the complaint as referring to
all germs, but Moreno contends the complaint may be amended to
refer to germs commonly found on hands. Both parties agreed at oral
argument that the 12(b)(6) analysis would be different under such
allegations.

The Ninth Circuit notes that when a complaint can be cured, leave
to amend should be freely given. It, thus, vacates the district
court's 12(b)(6) ruling, remands, and directs the district court to
grant Moreno leave to file a third amended complaint. Vi-Jon may
then renew its motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6).

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mru9xkap from Leagle.com.


VI-JON LLC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Sur-Reply
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW MACORMIC, ERIC
HOWARD, CONNOR HENRICHS, and JOYCE FRYER-KAUFFMAN, individually,
and on behalf of others similar similarly situated, v. VI-JON, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-01267-HEA
(E.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting
leave to file a brief sur-reply in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and
Appointment of Class Counsel.

Vi-Jon submits that such filing is necessary to address and refute
misstatements of critical facts regarding the deposition testimony
of the Plaintiffs and non-plaintiff proposed class representatives
raised for the first time in Plaintiffs' Reply Suggestions in
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Appointment
of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel which
was filed on November 21, 2022.

This Motion is not submitted for any improper purpose or undue
delay, but solely to seek leave to correct the record and to
respond to Plaintiffs' inaccurate and inflammatory accusations.
Given that the outcome of Plaintiffs' class certification motion
will dictate the future course of this litigation, the prejudice to
Vi-Jon of being deprived of an opportunity to respond to
Plaintiffs' and characterization of the evidence is significant,
the Defendant contends.

Vi-Jon is an American health and beauty care company that produces
both Private Label and brand name products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FvmFhg at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anthony G. Hopp, Esq.
          Carol R. Brophy, Esq.
          Melanie Ayerh, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          227 West Monroe Street, suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 577-1249
          Facsimile: (312) 577-1370
          E-mail: ahopp@steptoe.com
                  cbrophy@steptoe.com
                  mayerh@steptoe.com

                - and -

          John W. Moticka, Esq.
          Megan McCurdy, Esq.
          STINSON LLP
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105-1821
          Telephone: (314) 259-4562
          Facsimile: (314) 259-4467
          E-mail: john.moticka@stinson.com
                  megan.mccurdy@stinson.com

VXL ENT: Order Granting Proposed Amended Case Management Entered
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE AVANT, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. VXL ENTERPRISES LLC,
et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-02016-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting the Parties'
Proposed Amended Case Management Order and setting the following
class certification deadlines:

  -- Fact Discovery Deadline:            August 8, 2023

  -- Exchange of Affirmative Expert      September 5, 2023
     Reports, if any:

  -- Exchange of Rebuttal Reports:       October 3, 2023

  -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class:       October 30, 2023
     Certification:

  -- Defendants' Response in             November 28, 2023
     Opposition to Motion for
     Class Certification and Motion
     to Decertify:

  -- The Plaintiffs' Reply in            December 26, 2023
     Further Support of Class
     Certification and Response in
     Opposition to Motion to
     Decertify:

  -- The Defendants' Reply in            January 16, 2024
     Further Support of Motion
     to Decertify:

VXL is a global security services organization specializing in
comprehensive critical security solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3htw0yr at no extra charge.[CC]

WEBER INC: Faces IPO-Related Purported Class Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weber Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 14, 2022, that the Company faces
IPO-related purported class suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On July 29, 2022, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
naming as defendants, among others, the Company, its former Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, its Chief
Accounting Officer, most of its Board and the banks that acted as
underwriters in its initial public offering in August 2021 (the
"IPO").

The complaint asserts claims under U.S. federal securities laws, on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of shares of Class A
common stock in the Company's IPO, alleging that the IPO
Registration Statement and prospectus made false or misleading
statements regarding the purported likelihood of price increases
and declining demand and failed to disclose that, as a result of
the foregoing, there would be an adverse impact on the Company's
financial results.

The action seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as
equitable relief.

Weber Inc. is an outdoor cooking company that sells grills,
smokers, grilling accessories, and solid fuel products across the
world. The Individual Defendants are officers of the Company.[BN]


WELLS FARGO: Summary Judgment Bid in Droesch Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENISE DROESCH, et al., Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-06751-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs bring this wage and hour collective and class action
against their current and former employer Wells Fargo alleging that
it fails to pay telephone-based employees for all hours worked.

The Plaintiffs were or are telephone-based employees of Wells
Fargo. At the beginning of each workday, the Plaintiffs must boot
up their computers before they can begin work. Once their computers
are booted up, they launch a telephone software program known as
either Softphone or ACES, which enables them to receive phone
calls. At the end of the workday, they go through the same process
to log-off of Softphone/ACES and shutdown their computer. This
process is the same regardless of whether the employees are working
at a call center or working from home.

Non-exempt employees such as the Plaintiffs are responsible for
recording their own time in a Windows-based computer program called
"Time Keeper." As with the Softphone or ACES program, employees
open the Time Keeper program once their computer boots up and
manually record the time they start work as well as the time they
finish work at the end of the day. According to the Wells Fargo
Team Member Handbook, employees are: "responsible for submitting
timely and accurate records in Time Tracker of the time you work.
This includes any time spent on electronic devices for business
purposes." Wells Fargo sends an "annual right to be paid" reminder
to all non-exempt employees.

Plaintiff Kyonna Harrison began working for Wells Fargo in 2012 and
continues to work out of their Banking Call Center in San
Bernardino, California as an Account Resolution Specialist 3.
Shakara Thompson worked for Wells Fargo from 2015 to 2021 as a
Financial Crimes Specialist in Charlotte, North Carolina. Shana
Goins worked for Wells Fargo as a Phone Banker in Phoenix, Arizona
from 2010 to 2017. Ms. Goins went on medical leave in 2017. When
she returned to work in 2019, she was placed in a training class
during which time she did not answer any calls or have access to
the computers.

The Plaintiffs bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
their respective state laws contending that Wells Fargo failed to
pay them for all time worked. Because Wells Fargo required they be
"call-ready" at the start of their shift, they had to spend unpaid
time before their shift began booting up their computer and
reviewing emails. They similarly contend that because they had to
remain call-ready until their shift ended, they spent unpaid time
after their shift documenting issues that arose during calls
throughout their shifts ("after-call-work") and logging off their
computer.

The Plaintiffs concede that Wells Fargo's written policy requires
employees to record all their time, including time spent before or
after their shifts, but contend its supervisors and performance
evaluation metrics discouraged them from recording the time booting
up their computers at start of the day and logging off their
systems at the end of the day. Wells Fargo insists that the
Plaintiffs' claims fail because it lacked knowledge of their
off-the-clock work, and any such off-the-clock work was de
minimis.

Following conditional certification under Section 216(b) of the
FLSA, Wells Fargo filed the now pending early motion for summary
judgment insisting that the named Plaintiffs' claims fail as a
matter of law.

Wells Fargo insists that it had no knowledge of the Plaintiffs'
overtime work and emphasizes its written policies requiring
employees to record all time worked in Time Tracker. The Plaintiffs
maintain that notwithstanding the policies, Wells Fargo was on at
least inquiry notice that they were working without compensation.

Initially, Judge Corley examines the FLSA claim. Drawing reasonable
inferences from the record evidence in the Plaintiffs' favor, she
first finds that given the factual disputes regarding what Ms.
Harrison and Ms. Thompson were told regarding Wells Fargo's time
keeping policies -- notwithstanding its written policy -- and
supervisors' awareness of their deviations from these policies and
their off-the-clock work, Wells Fargo is not entitled to summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims based on lack of knowledge
of overtime work.

Next, Judge Corley finds that as the moving party on summary
judgment with the ultimate burden on the de minimis issue, Wells
Fargo "must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a
directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial." It
has not done so. The evidence may support a finding that the
Plaintiffs' off-the-clock time was both de mininis in the aggregate
and irregular, but Wells Fargo has not proved this fact as matter
of law.

Judge Corley also finds that Wells Fargo is entitled to summary
judgment on Ms. Goins' FLSA claim. She says on summary judgment,
the party who bears the burden of proof on a dispositive issue must
offer specific evidence demonstrating a factual basis on which it
is entitled to relief. The Plaintiffs have not done so -- the
Plaintiffs were required to respond to Wells Fargo's argument that
there is no evidence supporting Ms. Goins' FLSA claim with evidence
supporting her claim. Ms. Goins' uncertainty as to whether she was
paid is not evidence on which a reasonable trier of fact could find
that she was not paid.

Judge Corley now turns to the state law claims. Wells Fargo argues
that it is entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Harrison and Ms.
Thompson's state law wage and hour claims for the same reasons it
is entitled to summary judgment on the FLSA claim. Because summary
judgment on the FLSA claims is denied, summary judgment on these
state law claims is likewise denied.

Next, the Plaintiffs concede that Ms. Harrison's UCL claim must be
dismissed without prejudice under Guzman v. Polaris Indus. Inc., 49
F.4th 1308, 1311-13 (9th Cir. 2022), because she has an adequate
remedy at law available. Accordingly, the UCL claim is dismissed
without prejudice for lack of equitable jurisdiction.

Lastly, Wells Fargo contends that Ms. Goins' Arizona state law
claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs do
not dispute that the claim was filed beyond the one-year statute of
limitations, but contend that Ms. Goins is entitled to equitable
tolling under the California Judicial Council's Emergency Rules
adopted on April 6, 2020, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Judge Corley finds that the Plaintiffs have cited no authority --
and the Court is unaware of any -- which would allow it to apply
California rules of equitable tolling to a claim arising under
Arizona law. Accordingly, Ms. Goins' Arizona state law claim is
barred by the statute of limitations and Wells Fargo is entitled to
summary judgment in its favor on this claim.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Corley grants in part and denies
in part Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment. She grants it as
to Ms. Goins' claims, but denies otherwise. She dismisses Ms.
Harrison's UCL claim without prejudice.

Judge Corley sets a further case management conference for Feb. 2,
2023, at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom video with an updated joint case
management statement due Jan. 26, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 14, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/adb6dt87 from Leagle.com.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Class Cert Briefing Sched Extension Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM RUSHING and
ELIZABETH PERLIN, individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, also d/b/a Williams-Sonoma, and Williams-Sonoma Home,
Pottery Barn, PB Teen, and PB Dorm, Pottery Barn Kids, Pottery Barn
Baby, and West Elm; WILLIAMS-SONOMA DTC, INC., a California
corporation; WILLIAMS- SONOMA ADVERTISING, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their
stipulation to extend briefing schedule for plaintiff’s motion
for class certification as follows:

           Event                Current            Proposed
                                Deadline           Deadline

-- Deadline for Perlin      Dec. 15, 2022      Jan. 25, 2023
    to produce class
    certification
    expert(s) for
    deposition

-- Last day to file         Feb. 8, 2023       March 28, 2023
    opposition to Motion
    for Class
    Certification:

-- Deadline for             Feb. 24, 2023      April 13, 2023
    Defendants to
    produce class
    certification
    expert(s) for
    deposition:

Williams-Sonoma is an American publicly traded consumer retail
company that sells kitchenware and home furnishings.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j7mJwb at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

The Defendants are represented by:

          P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
          Robert J. Guite, Esq.
          Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq.
          Alyssa Sones, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
          Email: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
                 rguite@sheppardmullin.com
                 baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com
                 asones@sheppardmullin.com

XANADU MARKETING: Hall's Bid to Stay Class Cert. Deadline Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUNE HALL, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. XANADU MARKETING,
INC. d/b/a Houses Into Homes, Case No. 1:22-cv-03795-MHC (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Mark H. Cohen entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion to stay deadline for Plaintiff to Move
for Class Certification.

  -- The Plaintiff's deadline for filing her motion for class
     certification is stayed until the Court rules on
     Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and enters
     a scheduling order following the filing of the parties'
     Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan.

Xanadu Marketing provides advertising and marketing services to
clients.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WkaDOT at no extra charge.[CC]


                            *********

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 ***