/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221230.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, December 30, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 255

                            Headlines

5717 2ND AVENUE: Fuentes Seeks Construction Staff's Unpaid Wages
9W HALO: Parties Stipulate to Continue Class Cert Briefing
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Kusnier Sues Over Share Price Drop
AIMCO PAINTING: Moreira Sues Over Painters' Unpaid Wages
ARBORWORKS LLC: Scheduling Order Entered in Gonzalez Class suit

ASHLEY FURNITURE: Grasty Bid to Certify Class Dismissed as Moot
AUDIBLE INC: Golden, et al., Seek Leave to Seal Memorandum of Law
AUDIBLE INC: GUE Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class
AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Uninhabitable Housing
BANK OF AMERICA: Leber Alleges Fraudulent Money Transfer System

BCT ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Weirich Suit Alleges
BEN'S KOSHER: Faces Islam Suit Over Unlawful Deductions of Wages
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Court Narrows Claims inn Securities Suit
BRITAX CHILD: Coleman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
BRITISH COLUMBIA: COVID Suit Footage Proceedings Available Online

BRUTGER EQUITIES: Tisdell Files Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
CANADA: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set March 7, 2023
CARECORE HEALTH: Bid to Strike Gudger Class Suit Tossed as Moot
CORE SCIENTIFIC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 13
CORTEVA INC: Faces Psencik Suit Over Pesticide Monopoly

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Rapp Sues Over Wrongful Sales Tax Collection
COULTER VENTURES: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Bishop Suit
COULTER VENTURES: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Braun Suit
DEALER DOT COM: Transmits Personal Info to Facebook, Cantu Claims
DEMERT BRANDS: Dry Shampoo Contains Benzene, Kerns Suit Alleges

DEVON ENERGY: Cowan Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
DF GROWTH: Faces Ferry Class Suit Over Misleading Business Info
DIRECT HOME: Kauffman Sues Over Unlawful Recording of Calls
DOLAR SHOP: Li, et al., Seek Leave to File Class Certification Bid
DOLAR SHOP: Lin, et al., Seek Leave to File Class Certification Bid

ENSERVCO CORP: Continues to Defend Safe Class Suit in Colorado
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Class Cert Filing Extended to May 15, 2023
FACEBOOK INC: Zellmer Appeals BIPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
GLOBAL FINISHING: Parties Seek Conditional Class Certification
GLOBAL TILING: De Leon Sues Over Tile Installers' Unpaid Wages

GLOCK INC: Parties Stipulate to Continue Class Cert Briefing
GOOGLE LLC: Order on Nov. 21, 2022 Discovery Dispute Entered
GREATBANC TRUST: Judge Recommends Allowing Zavala to Amend Suit
GREENLIGHT FINANCIAL: Wright Sues Over Illegal Website Wiretapping
GREENSKY HOLDINGS: Faces Garcea Class Suit Over Collection Letter

HARBOR FREIGHT: Stipulated Briefing on Class Certification OK'd
HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Ketayi, et al., Seek Class Certification
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Morales Files Bid for Class Certification
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Class Conditionally Approved
HFS FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Wallach Suit Claims

HRL LABORATORIES: O'Connor Seeks Engineers' Unreimbursed Expenses
IKEA US: Court Dismisses Dukich Action for Lack of Jurisdiction
INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Filing Extended to June 21
IRIS ENERGY: Malouf Files Suit Over Share Price Decline
JAB EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Snide Suit Alleges

JLT RISK: Averts Class Action Over Government Insurance Mutuals
JOHNS HOPKINS: Class Settlement in Botts Gets Initial Nod
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Noohi Suit
JOYCE CAMPBELL: Caddell, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
JUUL LABS: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought

KINDER MORGAN: Partly Wins Bid to Compel Initial Disclosures
LAUNDRESS LLC: Cleaning Products Contains Bacteria, Ostenfeld Says
LEE ENTERPRISES: Stoudemire Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
LENDING BUG: Kauffman Sues Over Illegal Phone Call Recording
LOUISIANA: Victor Seeks to Add Offenders to Party Petitioners

MARCUS MYERS: Thibodeaux Seeks More Time to File Objections
MARINE CREDIT: Monroe FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
MDL 1917: Court Approves Notice of Direct Purchaser Class Cert.
MDL 2566: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Fraud Class Suit
MDL 2918: Class Cert Briefing Sched Amended in Antitrust Suit

MDL 2918: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert Briefing Schedule
MDL 3001: Appeals Partial Dismissal of Illegal Gambling Suit
MEDIGAP LIFE: Johnson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
MIDLAND STATES: Faces Garcea Class Suit Over Collection Letter
NAR: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs Burnett, et al.

NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Faces Ira Suit Over Unregistered Offerings
NATIONWIDE CHILDREN: Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective Sought
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Pascal, et al., Lose Class Certification Bid
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Class Cert. Response Deadlines Extended
PELICAN INVESTMENT: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Webb TCPA Suit

PGA TOUR: Class Action Over Civil Conspiracy Pending in California
PROGYNY INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
PURELY ELIZABETH: Reyes Sues Over Mislabeled Granola Products
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Court Certifies Class of Stock Investors
RAFEAL'S GOURMET: Conditional Certification Bid Granted in Part

RAYMOND JAMES: Bid to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings OK'd
RIDERSSHARE INC: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines
SAFE STREETS: Anderson's Bid for Final OK of $1.49MM Deal Denied
SAINT LOUIS, MO: Parties Must File Dismissal Papers in Alston
SAINT LOUIS, MO: Parties Must File Dismissal Papers in Lindsey

SECRETLAB US: Nugent Sues Over Mislabeled Gaming Chair Products
SERVICE KING: Supplemental Filing Date Extended to Feb. 17, 2023
SIMPLY MEDICAL: Case Management Plan Entered in Carrico Suit
SKIPPER 1339: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Brooks Suit Claims
ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Stays Newbold Class Suit

STELLAR MUTUAL: Vallesillo Allowed Leave to Seek Limited Discovery
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 14
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Faces Fung Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
SUPER BREAD: Fuentes, et al., Seek FLSA Class Certification
TATA CONSULTANCY: Katz Alleges Employment Discriminatory Practices

TAYLOR COUNTY: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Jones Says
TESLA INC: Asks Judge to Send Class Action Suit to Arbitration
TIREMAN AUTO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Yarger Suit Alleges
TOWER HILL: Wins Summary Judgment v. MSP Recovery Claims
ULTA BEAUTY: Bylaws Contrary to Delaware Law, Lovoi Suit Alleges

UMITJON KAMOLOV: Bid for Conditional Status Granted in Kargar Suit
UNILEVER PLC: Product Safety Class Action Pending in Federal Court
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Lifts Stay on Samson Class TCPA Suit
UPG ROADSIDE: Underpays Truck Drivers, Wright Suit Claims
V&B AUTO: Fails to Pay Saleswomen's Minimum Wages, Gomez Alleges

VIACOMCBS INC: Order on Parties' Proposed Class Notice Entered
WALMART INC: Mag. Judge Recommends Part Dismissal of Sousa Suit
WASHINGTON: Fails to Comply With Youth Outpatient Class Action
WATERWORKS OPERATING: Scheduling Order Entered in Amica Suit
WELLA OPERATIONS: Collects Data Without Consent, Shores Suit Says

WELLS FARGO: Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing Sought
WESTPAC LIFE: Settles BT Funds Class Action for $29.95 Million
WHOLE FOODS: Faces Hornthal Suit Over Whole Hot Pizzas' False Ads
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Lumsden Claims
WYKAGYL COUNTRY CLUB: Hopkins Sues Over Golf Caddie's Unpaid Wages


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Pays $1.3BB to Resolve Exposure Claims


                            *********

5717 2ND AVENUE: Fuentes Seeks Construction Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE ALBERTO FUENTES, JAIME CANALES-PEREZ, and JULIAN CANALES
ORTIZ, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. 5717 2nd AVENUE TILE CORP.; CIVIC CONTRACTING LLC;
11135 PALMETTO RIDGE LLC; CALDERA LANE LLC; and ANTHONY J. SCHIRO,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07446 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 8,
2022) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs Fuentes, Canales-Perez, and Ortiz were employed by the
Defendants to work for their construction business, doing tasks
required for the installation of tile and concrete roofing and
general carpentry, from approximately September 2015 through August
2022; from approximately 1995 through November 2022; and from
approximately 2004 through November 2022, respectively.

5717 2nd AVENUE TILE CORP. is a New York-based construction
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com

9W HALO: Parties Stipulate to Continue Class Cert Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SMITH, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, v. 9W HALO WESTERN OPCO
L.P., doing business as ANGELICA, a Delaware corporation, KKR &
CO., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-01968-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
submit a joint stipulation to continue the briefing schedule on the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows:

          Event              Current Deadline      New Deadline

  Plaintiff's Motion for    February 9, 2023      April 10, 2023
  Class Certification

  Defendant's Opposition     April 13, 2023       June 12, 2023
  to Motion for Class
  Certification

  Plaintiff's Reply in       May 11, 2023         July 10, 2023
  Support of Motion for
  Class Certification

On June 17, 2021, the Court issued a civil minute order following a
case management conference setting a briefing schedule on
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as
follows:

  -- Plaintiff's Motion for              June 16, 2022
     Class Certification:

  -- Defendant's Opposition:             August 18, 2022

  -- Plaintiff's Reply:                  September 1, 2022

Since that date, the Parties have litigated this case and have also
engaged in informal discussions regarding a second day of mediation
and/or informal settlement.

9w Halo was founded in 2016. The company's line of business
includes supplying linen to commercial establishments and household
users.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          Nolan Dilts, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com
                  nolan@setarehlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alden J. Parker, Esq.
          Christopher S. Alvarez, Esq.
          William T. Okamoto, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400
          Sacramento, California 95814
          Telephone: (916) 210-0400
          Facsimile: (916) 210-0401
          E-mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com
                  calvarez@fisherphillips.com
                  wokamoto@fisherphillips.com

AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Kusnier Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
MARK KUSNIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AFFIRM HOLDINGS, INC., MAX LEVCHIN, and
MICHAEL LINFORD, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-07770 (N.D. Cal.,
Dec. 8, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Affirm
securities between February 12, 2021 and December 15, 2021, both
dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

Affirm operates a platform for digital and mobile-first commerce in
the U.S. and Canada. The Company's platform includes point-of-sale
payment solutions for consumers, merchant commerce solutions, and a
consumer-focused app. Particularly, Affirm offers a payment service
known as "buy-now, pay-later" (BNPL), which allows consumers to
purchase a product immediately and pay for it at a later time,
usually over a series of installments.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants allegedly made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Affirm's BNPL service facilitated excessive consumer debt,
regulatory arbitrage, and data harvesting; (ii) the foregoing
subjected Affirm to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and
enforcement action; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times, says the suit.

On this news, Affirm's stock price fell $11.74 per share, or
10.58%, to close at $99.24 per share on December 16, 2021. As a
result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit alleges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

AIMCO PAINTING: Moreira Sues Over Painters' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS MOREIRA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AIMCO PAINTING INC. (D/B/A AIMCO PAINTING
INC.), GEETA BHARDWAJ, and RAJINDER N. SINGH, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-07430 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2022) is a class action brought by
the Plaintiff against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the
New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff Moreira was employed by Defendants as a painter from
approximately September 2019 until September 2021. He asserts that
Defendants failed to pay him appropriate overtime compensation,
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of hours worked, and
failed to pay Plaintiff Moreira wages on a timely basis.

Aimco Painting Inc. owns, operates, and controls a construction
company based in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165    
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com

ARBORWORKS LLC: Scheduling Order Entered in Gonzalez Class suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON TOVAR GONZALEZ, an
individual, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. ARBORWORKS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01030-ADA-SKO (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an scheduling order
as follows:

  -- Any motions or stipulations             July 7, 2023
     requesting leave to amend the
     pleadings must be filed by no
     later than:

  -- Class certification discovery           December 15, 2023
     shall be completed by no later
     than:

  -- The motion for class                    February 9, 2024
     certification shall be filed by
     no later than:

  -- Any opposition to the motion for        March 8, 2024
     class certification shall be
     filed by no later than:

  -- Any reply brief in support of           April 5, 2024
     the motion for class
     certification shall be filed
     by no later than:

  -- The motion for class                    May 1, 2024
     certification shall be heard on:

  -- A status conference to set              October 17, 2024
     further scheduling dates is
     set for:

Arborworks was founded in 2009. The company's line of business
includes providing ornamental shrub and tree services.

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

ASHLEY FURNITURE: Grasty Bid to Certify Class Dismissed as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE GRASTY v. ASHLEY
FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00334-MW-MAF (N.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mark E. Walker entered an order denying as
moot Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

The Plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The
Defendant has not filed an answer; accordingly, the notice is
effective without an order.

Ashley Furniture is an American home furnishings manufacturer and
retailer, headquartered in Arcadia, Wisconsin.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HZ5FTy at no extra charge.[CC]

AUDIBLE INC: Golden, et al., Seek Leave to Seal Memorandum of Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Golden Unicorn
Enterprises, Inc., et al., v. Audible, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07059-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting them leave to seal their Memorandum of Law in
Support of their Motion for Class Certification (and exhibits), due
December 21, 2022.

As per the Court's Order of December 20, 2022, the Defendant will
file a motion to seal on or before December 30, 2022, after
receiving Plaintiff's class certification brief and exhibits.

Audible is an American online audiobook and podcast service that
allows users to purchase and stream audiobooks and other forms of
spoken word content.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PMnyqN at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary W. Jackson, Esq.
          Chris Bagley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN
          555 S. Mangum Street, Suite 800
          Durham, NC 27701
          Telephone: (919) 226-1913
          Facsimile: (984) 227-6962
          E-mail: gjackson@farrin.com
          cbagley@farrin.com

                - and -

          Mitchell Breit, Esq.
          Leland Belew, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          405 East 50th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com
          lbelew@milberg.com

AUDIBLE INC: GUE Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOLDEN UNICORN
ENTERPRISES, Inc.; and BIG DOG BOOKS, LLC, on behalf of themselves
and all those similarly situated, v. AUDIBLE, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07059-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying a nationwide Class defined as:

   "All persons who entered into the Contract that licensed
   audio distribution rights to Audible, who owned or controlled
   verbal content that was distributed in audio form through
   ACX, and whose royalty payments were reduced by Audible based
   on returns or exchanges of the respective Audiobooks between
   August 20, 2015, and the date of the entry of the order
   certifying the Class, excluding Audible, any entity in which
   Audible has an ownership interest or a controlling interest,
   any agents, employees, officers and/or directors of Audible
   and its representatives, heirs, successors, and/or assigns."

The Plaintiffs furthermore move the Court to appoint their
attorneys as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary W. Jackson, Esq.
          Chris Bagley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN
          555 S. Mangum Street, Suite 800
          Durham, NC 27701
          Telephone: (919) 226-1913
          Facsimile: (984) 227-6962
          E-mail: gjackson@farrin.com
          cbagley@farrin.com

                - and -

          Mitchell Breit, Esq.
          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Leland Belew, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          405 East 50th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com
          arado@milberg.com
          lbelew@milberg.com

AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Uninhabitable Housing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Dornin, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports that a
class action has been launched against the Northern Territory
government, alleging it left properties in remote Aboriginal
communities, unsafe, insecure and uninhabitable.

Filed in the Federal Court by law firm Phi Finney McDonald, the
action also alleges tenants are paying excessive rent for housing
that does not meet basic minimum standards.

Senior Associate Madeline White said the case could have
far-reaching impacts.

"The applicants are seeking repayment of rent, damages, and orders
for repairs," she said.

"If the case is successful, it has the potential to not only
improve housing conditions in the Northern Territory, but in all
remote Aboriginal communities in Australia."

The case is being brought by lead plaintiffs Otto Dann and Eleanor
Manakgu from Gunbalanya in West Arnhem Land.

Ron Mangiru, 53, a community leader also living in Gunbalanya, said
he had requested that his landlord address the lack of air
conditioning in his home.

"It's really not good enough and is very complicated for us
Aboriginal people living in remote communities," Mr Mangiru said in
a statement on Dec. 19.

"White people are given houses with air con or people come and fix
the air con. But we live in a hot area and have no air
conditioning."

Remote housing advocate Daniel Kelly said the legal action was
necessary to hold the NT government to account and ensure housing
conditions were improved.

"The housing crisis has continued in remote communities for years,
as have the physical and mental health impacts, and the negative
effects on education and employment outcomes," Mr Kelly said.

"The Territory government and the commonwealth government have not
communicated plans to bring all housing up to the legal standard,
and tenants have no option other than to seek redress through
courts," he said.

The class action alleges it was unconscionable for the NT chief
executive of housing to fail to repair houses, fail to reduce rent
where houses were not in good repair and fail to properly explain
tenancy agreements, in circumstances where tenants had no other
option for housing.

The applicants also claim the conduct amounted to unlawful racial
discrimination.

The NT and federal governments have been responsible for housing in
73 Aboriginal communities for the past 15 years after the so-called
intervention in 2007 removed local community control. [GN]

BANK OF AMERICA: Leber Alleges Fraudulent Money Transfer System
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIGITTE LEBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
30-2022-01295356-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Dec. 7, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Zelle money transfer system is rife
with fraud -- fraud that places all Zelle users at acute and
immediate risk. Billions of dollars of fraudulent transactions are
processed by the service each year. Victims of Zelle fraud, like
Plaintiff are often left devastated by such fraud, which can drain
hundreds or thousands of dollars from their bank accounts. But when
Zelle fraud victims turn to Bank of America for help, the Bank
insists that it is the users' fault and that they will not help
them with such problem, says the complaint.

The Bank's corporate policy of "blaming the victim" is good
business for the Bank, alleges the complaint. As partial owner of
Zelle (along with several other of America's largest banks), the
Bank has a huge incentive to get as many of its customers as
possible to sign up for and use the Zelle service for payments and
money transfers: the more of its accountholders it can convince to
sign up for and use Zelle, the more the Bank saves by avoiding
transaction payments to other payment networks. Accordingly, the
Bank aggressively markets the Zelle service to its accountholders,
repeatedly urging accountholders to sign up for Zelle every time
they log in to online banking or use the mobile app, the complaint
asserts.

The Plaintiff and the Class members contend that they have been
injured by signing up for and using Zelle. The Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of herself, and the putative Class, because
Plaintiff should not be left "holding the bag" for fraudulent
transactions. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks actual damages, punitive
damages, restitution, and an injunction on behalf of the general
public to prevent BofA from continuing to engage in its alleged
illegal practices.

Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL GOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street, NW, 4th Floor  
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL GOLD PLLC
          950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.     
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

BCT ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Weirich Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD WEIRICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BCT ENTERPRISES, LLC; JOHN DOE 1–10; and
DOE CORPORATION 1–10, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04426-MHW-CMV
(S.D. Ohio, Dec. 20, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Weirich was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

BCT ENTERPRISES, LLC operate several Papa John’s Pizza franchises
in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Road Suite 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 202-0710
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          Email: abiller@billerkimble.com
                 akimble@billerkimble.com
                 www.billerkimble.com

BEN'S KOSHER: Faces Islam Suit Over Unlawful Deductions of Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFIQUL ISLAM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. BEN'S KOSHER
DELICATESSEN & RESTAURANT INC., WEST 38 KOSHER DELI INC., RONALD M.
DRAGOON, and ROBERT B. DAVID, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10368
(S.D.N.Y., December 7, 2022) brings this complaint seeking
recovery, for himself and all other similarly situated, against the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server at the
Defendants' delicatessen, known as "Ben's Kosher Deli" from on or
around January 2008 through and including August 2019.

The Plaintiff asserts that he worked for a total average
approximately 44 to 57.5 hours during each of the weeks from
approximately November 2016 to, through and including August 2019.
Although he was paid at or around the prevailing minimum wage and
the prevailing overtime wage for any hours worked over 40 per week,
the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully
appropriating his wages. The Defendants allegedly required him and
other similarly situated individuals to distribute 2.75% of daily
sales to busboys, irrespective of the amount of gratuities actually
received from customers, using their won cash wages. As a result,
the Defendants failed to provide them with accurate IRS FormsW-2
for all the tax years of their employment and failed to properly
record, account for, and report to the IRS all monies paid to them,
thereby filing fraudulent information in violation of 26 U.S.C.
Section 7434, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff also claims that the Defendants failed to post in a
conspicuous place notices issue by the Department of Labor about
wages and hours laws, tips appropriations, or illegal deduction
provisions. The Defendants also failed to provide them with
accurate wage statement, and with any notice of their rate of pay,
employer's regular pay day, and such other information as required
by NYLL.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the amounts of any unlawful
deductions, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

Ben's Kosher Delicatessen & Restaurant Inc. and West 38 Kosher Deli
Inc. operate restaurants. Ronald M. Dragoon & Robert B. David are
co-owners of the Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Tel: (212) 792-0046
          E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Court Narrows Claims inn Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-10033-DPW (D. Mass.), the
Hon. Judge Douglas P. Woodlock entered an order granting in part
and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the putative
securities fraud class action.

Judge Woodlock said, "Specifically, I grant the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss as to Count I, except as alleged against Mr. Mahoney and
Boston Scientific because Plaintiff has alleged misrepresentations
involving a strong inference of fraudulent scienter as to those
Defendants and I deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Count II,
the Section 20(a) claim against the Executive Defendants."

In light of this disposition of the motion to dismiss, this case
now moves to the stage of factual development in anticipation of
class certification and summary judgment practice.

In order to frame the next stage of this litigation, the parties
shall meet and confer with a view toward presenting a proposed
schedule for such proceedings.

Lead Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased or acquired Boston Scientific common stock between
February 6, 2019 and November 16, 2020 (the Class Period).

Lead Plaintiff is the parent holding company of the Union
Investment Group, an asset management firm based in
Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany. Union Asset Management funds purchased
common stock in Boston Scientific during the Class Period.

Boston Scientific is a biomedical/biotechnology engineering firm
and multinational manufacturer of medical devices used in
interventional medical specialties.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YO2Uua at no extra charge.[CC]

BRITAX CHILD: Coleman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY COLEMAN, KELI
SWANN, and HEATHER BROOKE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. BRITAX CHILD SAFETY, INC., Case No.
0:21-cv-00721-SAL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting extending time for class certification bid and to
serve supporting expert report:

   -- Pursuant to Local Rule 6.01, Plaintiffs Tiffany Coleman,
      Keli Swann, and Heather Brooke move for a one-week
      extension of the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion
      for class certification and serve any class certification
      expert report from December 22, 2022 to and including
      December 29, 2022.

   -- The Defendant Britax Child Safety, Inc. does not oppose
      this motion. This Court previously allowed Plaintiffs an
      extension of this deadline from October 19, 2022 to
      December 22, 2022.

   -- The requested additional extension would not require any
      changes to the current Third Amended Scheduling Order,
      including the remainder of the briefing schedule for
      Plaintiffs' class certification motion.

Britax is a British manufacturer of childcare products including
car seats, pushchairs and high chairs.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BY4ekK at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Martha A. Geer, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com
                  dbryson@milberg.com
                  mgeer@milberg.com

                - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: gcoleman@milberg.com
                  jcohen@milberg.com

BRITISH COLUMBIA: COVID Suit Footage Proceedings Available Online
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hainsworth, writing for Glacier Media, reports that footage
of a B.C. Supreme Court COVID class action certification process is
now available online.

After days of discussion, lawyers presented Justice David Crerar on
Dec. 16 with a solution to issues that had hampered getting the
footage online. Crerar agreed to the solution.

"Make it so," he said.

The lawsuit filed by the plaintiff Canadian Society for the
Advancement of Science in Public Policy, led by Kipling Warner,
seeks to challenge and obtain compensation for various measures,
mandates and restrictions imposed in response to the pandemic.

Provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry is named a defendant in
the lawsuit.

Since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak
a pandemic in March 2020, Henry issued orders designed to reduce
the virus' spread in B.C., including requiring proof of vaccination
to enter several businesses like restaurants. The so-called
"vaccine passport" was in place in B.C. from September 2021 to
April 2022.

Crerar is hearing arguments on an application for class action
certification. He is listening to applications of various kinds as
well as evidence to determine if a class action is a suitable
choice for the case, which can involve many people but is
represented by what is known as a representative claimant.

As of Dec. 16, the judge has heard five days of submissions.

On Dec. 12, the plaintiff's lawyer Polina Furtula said the
challenge revolves around whether or not the pandemic warranted
having an emergency declared. She said the provincial legislative
conditions for an emergency declaration were not met.

She called the resulting response "disproportionate."

And that, she said, requires denunciation.

What the plaintiffs want, according to Furtula, is a declaration
that the government's actions were wrong. Her clients seek both
vindication and deterrence for the government from doing similar
things in future.

All of that can now be seen in the footage online. Readers need to
be aware that they can only watch the footage on that site and that
reposting or copying it could violate the judge's order and result
in criminal consequences.

The website carries a warning.

"This is a recording of judicial proceedings which may not be
further broadcast, rebroadcast, transmitted, reproduced,
communicated to the public by telecommunication, or otherwise made
available in whole or in part in any form or by any means,
electronic or otherwise, or stored in whole or in part in any
information storage and retrieval system, without the prior written
authorization of the Supreme Court of British Columbia," the
warning said.

"Any unauthorized use of this recording in breach of the order of
the Supreme Court of British Columbia shall expose the person doing
so to legal proceedings for contempt of court," the warning said.

The footage is available on Vimeo.

The very fact of a case being filmed is a rarity in B.C.'s courts.

In a decision released Dec. 1, Crerar ruled the public would
benefit by being able to view proceedings.

The provincial government argued that inflammatory and violent
comments made on the Internet, that when associated with the
broadcast, could demean the court and risk violence.

Crerar ruled that would happen regardless of whether the hearings
were broadcast.

"The Internet is already a cesspit of misinformed and, at times,
deranged statements about almost every topic, including our courts.
Such poison exists regardless of whether court proceedings are
broadcast," he ruled.

Some parts of the footage will not be clear to viewers  Images from
lawyers' computer screens, which could be privileged information,
will be pixelated, as will the faces of the court registrars
sitting in front of the judge.[GN]

BRUTGER EQUITIES: Tisdell Files Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE TISDELL, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. BRUTGER EQUITIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-03037-ECT-LIB (D. Minn., December 7,
2022) brings this complaint as a class and collective action
against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has started working for the Defendant as a front desk
worker at its hotel located in Mountain Iron, Minnesota, and was
eventually moved to the maintenance department and promoted to
property maintenance supervisor.

The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated
employees were routinely required by the Defendant to begin working
more than 5 minutes before the scheduled start of their shifts.
However, the Defendant did not compensate them for all hours they
have worked. Specifically, they were required to perform pre- and
post-shift activities, such as shoveling snow from the entrance of
the properties, testing the chemical levels in the pool, moving
trash out of the building to be picked up, and counting the cash at
the front desk. Despite routinely working more than 40 hours per
week, the Defendant deprived them of their lawfully earned overtime
premium pay at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek,
says the Plaintiff.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff seeks to recover reimbursement of all unpaid wages at
the applicable overtime rates for all overtime work as described in
this complaint; any penalties or other amounts under any applicable
laws, statutes, or regulations; as well as pre-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, punitive damages, and other
legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and necessary.

Brutger Equities is a housing and hotel development and management
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          Nicholas P. DeMaris, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOSWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Tel: (612) 252-3570
          E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
                  npdemaris@baillonthome.com

CANADA: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set March 7, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Notice

Important Opportunity - Deadline March 7, 2023

Drinking Water Class Action

Drinking Water Class Action

What is it? The Drinking Water Class Action was a court case
against Canada related to drinking water advisories on reserves
that now been settled. Lac Seul First Nation Band Members can apply
for compensation from the settlement funds. How much money you will
receive depends on many factors.

Who is Eligible? You must meet BOTH the initial requirements AND
all of the requirements in either option one OR option two.


What Type of Applications are There?
Basic Application   Specific Harm Application
If you meet the eligibility requirements you can apply for
compensation, using the basic application form.
If you were directly harmed by the drinking water advisory you can
apply for additional compensation.
Where Can I get the Application Form?
Download: https://firstnationsdrinkingwater.ca/index.php/claim-forms/
Paper Copy: Available to pick up at any of the Band Offices

How Do I Apply? Completed applications and attached documents can
be sent by:

Mail: Drinking Water Class Action Claims Administrator, c/o
Deloitte PO BOX 160 STN Adelaide Toronto, ON, M5C 2J2, Canada
Email: firstnationswater@deloitte.ca
Fax: 647-738-5206
Online Portal:
https://firstnationsdrinkingwater.powerappsportals.com/en/ [GN]

CARECORE HEALTH: Bid to Strike Gudger Class Suit Tossed as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRE'ANYA GUDGER, et al.,
v. CARECORE HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00239-MJN-CHG (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Newman entered an order:

   1. granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their
      second amended complaint, and directing plaintiffs'
      counsel to forthwith file named plaintiffs' second amended
      complaint as a separate document in the record of this
      case;

   2. denying as moot defendant's motion to strike;

   3. denying as moot defendant's unopposed motion for extension
      of time; and

   4. denying as moot defendant's unopposed motion for extension
      of time to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification.

CareCore is family owned and operated, and provides individualized
care plans.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vg0N4Q at no extra charge.[CC]

CORE SCIENTIFIC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 13
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Core Scientific, Inc. CORZ between
January 3, 2022 and October 26, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important January 13, 2023 lead plaintiff
deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Core Scientific securities during the
Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of
any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee
arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Core Scientific class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3932 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 13, 2023.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) due in part to the expiration of a
favorable pricing agreement, Core Scientific was experiencing
increasing power costs; (2) Core Scientific's largest customer,
Gryphon, lacked the financial resources to purchase the necessary
miner rigs for Core Scientific to host; (3) Core Scientific was not
providing hosting services to Celsius Network LLC and related
entities ("Celsius") as required by their contract; (4) Core
Scientific had implemented an improper surcharge to pass through
power costs to Celsius; (5) as a result of the foregoing alleged
breaches of contract, Core Scientific was reasonably likely to
incur liability to defend itself against Celsius; (6) as a result
of the foregoing, Core Scientific's profitability would be
adversely impacted; (7) as a result, there was likely substantial
doubt as to Core Scientific's ability to continue as a going
concern; and (8) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

To join the Core Scientific class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3932 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

CORTEVA INC: Faces Psencik Suit Over Pesticide Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------
WALTER PSENCIK; and TRAVIS PSENCIK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORTEVA, INC.;
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORP.; SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION, LLC; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; DOE
DEFENDANT WHOLESALERS 1-5; AND DOE DEFENDANT RETAILERS 6-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02423-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind., Dec. 19,
2022) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, for many years, the Defendants have
unfairly impeded competitors and artificially inflated the prices
that U.S. farmers pay for crop protection products ("CPPs"). The
Defendants do this by deploying a set of so-called "loyalty
programs," which are designed to severely limit the availability of
lower-priced generic products. Through this scheme, the Defendants
have suppressed generic competition and maintained monopolies long
after their lawful exclusive rights to particular crop-protection
products have expired. These unlawful business practices have cost
farmers many millions of dollars a year on their purchases of CPPs
containing active ingredients rimsulfuron, oxamyl, acetochlor,
azoxystrobin, mesotrione, metolachlor, or s-metolachlor, says the
suit.

The Defendants' anticompetitive scheme has reduced competition in
the market for the CPPs and thereby artificially inflated the price
of those CPPs and of the generic competitors to those CPPs. The
Plaintiffs and the proposed Class have been injured by paying
artificially inflated prices for their CPP purchases, the suit
alleges.

CORTEVA, INC. provides agricultural products. The Company offers
seeds and crop protection products, as well as software solutions
and digital services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David E. Kovel, Esq.
          Nicole A. Veno, Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          Email: dkovel@kmllp.com
                 nveno@kmllp.com

               - and -

          R. Lyn Stevens, Esq.
          STEVENS LAW FIRM
          1782 Mountain Springs
          Canyon Lake, TX 78133
          Telephone: (409) 880-9714
          Email: Lyn@Stevens.Law

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Rapp Sues Over Wrongful Sales Tax Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER JOSEPH RAPP, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION D/B/A
COSTCO WHOLESALE, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00645-CHB (W.D. Ky.,
Dec. 7, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of
Kentucky law for the assessment of sales tax on exempt food items;
for unfair, false, misleading, and/or deceptive trade practices;
for breach of fiduciary duty to customers; and for conversion of
customers' funds in Kentucky.

On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff visited Costco in Louisville,
Kentucky and purchased Cretor's popcorn mix. He asserts that Costco
wrongly collected sales tax on Cretor's mix that he purchased
because it is a food item, which is totally exempt from sales tax.
The sales tax collected on Cretor's mix alone was $1.03, or 6% of
the pre-discounted price of $17.22.

The complaint alleges that Costco induced customers (including Mr.
Rapp) to believe that it was deducting the proper amount of sales
tax even though it had knowledge that the amount collected exceeded
the amount imposed by Kentucky law.

Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American multinational
corporation which operates a chain of membership-only big-box
retail stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          T. Scott Abell, Esq.
          Joshua T. Rose, Esq.
          ABELL ROSE LAW
          108 S. Madison Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40243
          Telephone: (502) 450-5611
          E-mail: sabell@abellroselaw.com
                  jrose@abellroselaw.com

COULTER VENTURES: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Bishop Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLEN D. BISHOP, et al.,,
et al., v. COULTER VENTURES, LLC d/b/a ROGUE FITNESS, et al., Case
No. 2:20-cv-03052-ALM-KAJ (E.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A.
Jolson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
extension of deadlines:

   -- The Court grants in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension.

   -- Primary expert reports are due 60 days after the Court's
      ruling on Rule 23 Class Certification.

   -- Rebuttal expert reports are due 30 days thereafter. But
      the parties are ordered to be more diligent in their
      compliance with the case schedule.

   -- These related actions have been pending for years, and the
      parties continue to delay progress with their lack of
      diligence.

   -- The Court adopted the parties' framework for the amended
      case schedule, yet the parties continually seek to revise
      the case schedule they largely designed.

   -- Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants must be more
      diligent moving forward, for the sake of their clients and
      out of respect for the Court's resources.

Coulter retails athletics equipment.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wm9lmR at no extra charge.[CC]


COULTER VENTURES: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Braun Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT LEE BRAUN, et al.,
v. COULTER VENTURES, LLC d/b/a ROGUE FITNESS, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-05050-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A.
Jolson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
extension of deadlines:

   -- The Court grants in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension.

   -- Primary expert reports are due 60 days after the Court's
      ruling on Rule 23 Class Certification.

   -- Rebuttal expert reports are due 30 days thereafter. But
      the parties are ordered to be more diligent in their
      compliance with the case schedule.

   -- These related actions have been pending for years, and the
      parties continue to delay progress with their lack of
      diligence.

   -- The Court adopted the parties' framework for the amended
      case schedule, yet the parties continually seek to revise
      the case schedule they largely designed.

   -- Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants must be more
      diligent moving forward, for the sake of their clients and
      out of respect for the Court's resources.

Coulter retails athletics equipment.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PRqEcN at no extra charge.[CC]


DEALER DOT COM: Transmits Personal Info to Facebook, Cantu Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE CANTU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEALER DOT COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation
dba DEALER.COM; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01938-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged actions that violate the Video Privacy
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, when a visitor watches a video on
Dealer.com while logged into Facebook, Defendants compel a
visitor's browser to transmit the c user cookie to Facebook. The c
user cookie contains that visitor's unencrypted Facebook ID. When
accessing the mentioned video, for example, Defendants compelled
the browser to send ten cookies. Through the Facebook Tracking
Pixel's code, these cookies combine the identifiers with the event
data, allowing Facebook to know, among other things, what
Dealer.com videos a user has watched, says the suit.

By disclosing his event data and identifiers, Defendant disclosed
Plaintiff's personally identifiable information to a third-party.
After visiting Defendant's website and watching a video, Plaintiff
discovered that Defendants surreptitiously collected and
transmitted his personally identifiable information to Facebook,
the suit asserts.

Dealer Dot Com, Inc. provides online digital marketing solutions
for the automotive industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          A Professional Corporation
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com

DEMERT BRANDS: Dry Shampoo Contains Benzene, Kerns Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JILL KERNS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. DEMERT BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00144-SPW-TJC (D.
Mont., Dec. 16, 2022) sues the Defendant for distributing,
marketing and selling over-the-counter dry shampoo products under
the Not Your Mother's brand name that have been found by an
independent laboratory to be contaminated and/or adulterated with
benzene, a known human carcinogen.

The presence of benzene in Defendant's products was not disclosed
in the products' label other otherwise made known to consumers, in
violation of Montana law and other the putative class
representatives' states' laws. The Plaintiff and the putative Class
member purchased and used one or more of the Not Your Mother's dry
shampoo products that were specifically identified by Valisure as
containing benzene at or above 0.1 ppm, the suit says.

By failing to disclose the presence of benzene or the risk of
benzene contamination in its products' labels and advertising and
marketing material, Plaintiff has been denied the opportunity to
make informed financial and healthcare decisions, the suit
contends.

Benzene is used primarily in the chemical and pharmaceutical
industries, as a starting material and intermediate in the
synthesis of numerous chemicals, and in gasoline.

The Food and Drug Administration recognizes that "benzene is a
carcinogen that can cause cancer in humans" and classifies benzene
as a "Class 1" solvent that should be "avoided."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chelsie Warner, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 202-1010
          Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
          E-mail: cwarner@awkolaw.com
                  cduer@awkolaw.com

DEVON ENERGY: Cowan Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chuck Travis Cowan, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Devon
Energy Corporation, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00220-JAR (E.D.
Okla.), the Class Representative Chuck Travis Cowan asks the Court
to enter an order:

   1. granting final certification of the Settlement Class;

   2. granting final approval of the Settlement as fair,
      reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the
      Settlement Class; and
   
   3. granting final approval of the Notice to Class Members.

On September 21, 2022, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, approving the form of notice, and setting
a date of January 17, 2023, for the final fairness hearing.

The Court already certified the following Settlement Class:

   "All non-excluded persons or entities who, during the Claim
    Period:

    (1) (i) received payments from the Defendants (or the
        Defendants' designee) for oil, gas, or natural gas
        liquids proceeds from Oklahoma wells or (ii) whose
        proceeds were remitted to unclaimed property divisions
        of any government entity by Defendants; and

    (2) whose payments or whose unclaimed property payments did
        not include statutory interest.

The "Settlement Class" includes owners of royalty interests,
overriding royalty interests, and working interests.
Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendants, their affiliates,
predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies,
departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America
or the State of Oklahoma; (3) publicly traded oil-and-gas companies
and their affiliates; (4) persons or entities that Plaintiff 's
counsel may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the
Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct; (5) any Indian tribe as
defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined
at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); and (6) officers of the Court.

The Claim Period is the time period between and including October
1, 2011, through the expiration of 120 days following the execution
of the Settlement Agreement (i.e. November 19, 2022).

Devon is an energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration in
the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WnRsUB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
          BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
          431 W. Main Street, Suite D
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 698-2770
          E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
                  ryan@bradwil.com

                –and–

          Tim Maxcey, Esq.
          STIPE LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 1369
          McAlester, OK 74502
          Telephone: (918) 423-0421
          Facsimile: (918) 423-0266
          E-mail: tmaxcey@stipelaw.com

DF GROWTH: Faces Ferry Class Suit Over Misleading Business Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK FERRY, IGOR KOROSTELEV and RYAN KRAUSE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. DF GROWTH REIT,
LLC, DF GROWTH REIT II, LLC, DIVERSYFUND, INC., CRAIG CECILIO, and
ALAN LEWIS, Case No. 3:22-cv-02001-H-WVG (S.D. Cal., Dec. 16,
2022), alleges that Defendants REIT I and REIT II violated the Cal.
Corp. Code by making statements of material fact regarding:

    -- the interdependency between REIT I and REIT II;

    -- the fees charged by REIT I and REIT II;

    -- the background of management; and

    -- REIT I and REIT II's lack of a need to raise a minimum
       amount of capital, that were untrue, and/or omitted to
       state material facts necessary to make the statements
       made, in the light of the circumstances under which the
       statements were made, not misleading.

The Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants DiversyFund, Cecilio and
Lewis each materially aided in the acts and/or transactions
constituting the primary violations of Cal. Corp. Code section
25401, and had knowledge of or reasonable grounds to believe in the
existence of the facts by reason of which the liability is alleged
to exist. As a result of their status as control persons and
material aid in the primary violations, Defendants DiversyFund,
Cecilio and Lewis are each jointly and severally liable with one
another, to the same extent as each of REIT I and/or REIT II are
liable, for the damages and other relief sought herein.

The Plaintiffs further allege that the total claims of the
individual members of the Class in this action are in excess of
$5,000,000.00 in the aggregate, exclusive of interest and costs.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of Kansas, Illinois and Arizona.
Furthermore, the Plaintiffs allege that more than two-thirds of all
of the members of the proposed Class in the aggregate are citizens
of a state other than California, in which this action is
originally being filed.

The DiversyFund Growth REIT is a SEC-qualified Real Estate
Investment Trust (REIT).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua B. Kons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA B. KONS, LLC
          92 Hopmeadow Street, Suite LL1
          Weatogue, CT 06089
          Telephone: (860) 920-5181
          Facsimile: (860) 920-5174
          E-mail: joshuakons@konslaw.com

                - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (323)306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

                - and -

          Christopher J. Gray, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. GRAY,
          P.C., P.C.
          360 Lexington Ave, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 838-3221
          Facsimile: (212) 937-3139
          E-mail: chris@investorlawyers.net

DIRECT HOME: Kauffman Sues Over Unlawful Recording of Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KAUFFMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT HOME MORTGAGES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01937-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for damages and injunctive relief for
recording conversations with Plaintiff and Class Members without
any notification or warning in violation of the California Invasion
of Privacy Act.

On November 25, 2022, an agent of Defendant called Plaintiff
attempting to sell Plaintiff a mortgage. The agent did not advise
Plaintiff that Defendant was recording the call or seek Plaintiff's
consent to record. The Defendant records all its calls, both
inbound and outbound, like the ones it made to Plaintiff, says the
suit.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant violated Plaintiff's
constitutionally protected privacy rights by failing to advise or
otherwise provide notice at the beginning of the conversation(s)
with Plaintiff that the call(s) would be recorded, and Defendant
did not try to obtain Plaintiff's consent before such recording.

Direct Home Mortgages LLC is a mortgage lender with its
headquarters in Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (866) 219-3343
          E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com

               - and -

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

DOLAR SHOP: Li, et al., Seek Leave to File Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GANG LI, DONG BIN LI, JIA
ZHEN JING, JIN WANG, MEI FANG YAO, SHAN ZHI SUN and HAI HONG HAN on
their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE
DOLAR SHOP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC. d/b/a "THE DOLAR SHOP", KEN
CHEUNG, SUZIE CHEUNG, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" No. 1-10, Case No.
1:16-cv-01953-RPK-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting them leave to file their motion for
certification of the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wzxw1n at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          Tiffany Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com

DOLAR SHOP: Lin, et al., Seek Leave to File Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEN LIN, JIANQUN ZHANG,
DI PAN, BO LIU, and JIALIANG PAN, v. THE DOLAR SHOP RESTAURANT
GROUP, LLC d/b/a Dolar Shop, SHANGHAI SHENZHUANG THE DOLAR SHOP
CATERING MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., YU ZHANG a/k/a Yu Cheung a/k/a Suzie
Cheung, TZU CHEUNG a/k/a Tzu Yen Cheung a/k/a Ken Cheung, QIN BO
LIANG a/k/a Alvin Liang, ZHONG BAO YUAN, QIN CHUN GAO, YING NAN QI
a/k/a Frank Qi, XIN FENG WANG a/k/a Ruby Wang, and XIANG CHAO
LIU,the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them
leave to file their motion for certification of the action as a
class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FWiKL0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          Tiffany Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com

ENSERVCO CORP: Continues to Defend Safe Class Suit in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enservco Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 23, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Safe class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.

On May 22, 2022, Ali Safe, acting individually and on behalf of
others, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the
Company and certain of its officers violated securities laws in
relation to certain of its SEC Form 10-Q filings in 2021 which
required amendments and restatements to such filings.

On November  28, 2022, the plaintiff amended their complaint
primarily to add Jan Lambert as lead plaintiff and to include Cross
River Partners, L.P. and Cross River Capital Management, LLC as
defendants.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and have engaged
counsel to vigorously defend the Company against such claims.

The Company has Director's and Officer's insurance coverage to
defend against such claims and the Company's insurance carriers
have been notified about the lawsuit.

Enservco Corporation, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries,
provides various services to the domestic onshore oil and natural
gas industry.


EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Class Cert Filing Extended to May 15, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ROTHMAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-09760-CAS-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina A.
Snyder entered an order regarding joint motion and stipulation for
extension of deadline for class certification and briefing schedule
as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff shall file a             May 15, 2023
      Motion for Class Certification
      on or before:

   2. The Defendant shall file its           July 17, 2023
      Opposition to the Motion for
      Class Certification on
      or before:

   3. The Plaintiff shall file any           August 31, 2023
      Reply in support of Motion for
      Class Certification on
      or before:

Equinox is an American luxury fitness company which operates
several lifestyle brands: Equinox, Equinox Hotels, Precision Run,
Project by Equinox, Equinox Explore, Equinox Media.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hQ1puU at no extra charge.[CC]

FACEBOOK INC: Zellmer Appeals BIPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAYTON P. ZELLMER is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing his lawsuit entitled Clayton Zellmer, Plaintiff, v.
Facebook, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01880-JD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed this class action against the Defendant for capturing,
possessing, collecting, storing, receiving through trade,
obtaining, and using his and other similarly situated individuals'
biometric identifiers and biometric information without their
informed written consent in violation of Section 15(a) and Section
15(b) of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Specifically,
Facebook has created, collected, and stored over a billion "face
templates" (or "face prints") -- highly detailed geometric maps of
the face -- from over a billion individuals, millions of whom
reside in the State of Illinois. Facebook creates these templates
using sophisticated facial recognition technology that extracts and
analyzes data from the points and contours of faces appearing in
photos uploaded by their users. Each face template is unique to a
particular individual, in the same way that a fingerprint or
voiceprint uniquely identifies one and only one person.

On July 2, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

On May 17, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of Facebook on the Section
15(b) portion of the claim, which was the main thrust of the
complaint. Summary judgment was denied for the Section 15(a)
portion of his claim, mainly because of fact disputes not suited to
resolution on the papers.

On November 14, 2022, the Court, through an Order entered by Judge
James Donato, determined that Mr. Zellmer lacks Article III
standing to pursue his Section 15(a) BIPA claim. The case was
dismissed without prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned Clayton Zellmer v. Facebook, Inc.,
Case No. 22-16925, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on December 15, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Clayton P. Zellmer Mediation Questionnaire was due
December 22, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on February 13, 2023;

   -- Appellant Clayton P. Zellmer opening brief is due on March
23, 2023;

   -- Appellee Facebook, Inc. answering brief is due on April 24,
2023; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CLAYTON P. ZELLMER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
            BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
            7817 Ivanhoe Avenue
            La Jolla, CA 92037
            Telephone: (858) 914-2001

                    - and -

            David Philip Milian, Esq.
            CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP
            1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
            Miami, FL 33131
            Telephone: (305) 372-7474

Defendant-Appellee FACEBOOK, INC. is represented by:

            Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
            GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
            200 Park Avenue
            New York, NY 10166
            Telephone: (212) 351-4000

                    - and -

            John Nadolenco, Esq.
            MAYER BROWN, LLP
            333 S. Grand Avenue, 47th Floor
            Los Angeles, CA 90071
            Telephone: (213) 229-5173

                    - and -

            Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq.
            COOLEY, LLP
            3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 693-2181

                    - and -

            Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
            COOLEY, LLP
            3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 693-2000

GLOBAL FINISHING: Parties Seek Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALVATORE PARENTE, et al.,
v. GLOBAL FINISHING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00159-wmc
(W.D. Wisc.), the Parties file a joint motion for entry of agreed
order regarding conditional class certification and proposed notice
under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):

On November 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of this matter as a collective action under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b) and for an order authorizing notice to be sent to
all former employees of Defendant who were affected by its group
termination in 2020.

The Defendant Global Finishing Solutions, LLC has no objection to
providing notice of this lawsuit to former employees of Defendant
who were aged 40 or older at the time that they were terminated
from employment in the 2020 reduction in force.

It also has no objection to providing Plaintiffs' counsel with the
names and addresses of those individuals.

In the interest of efficiency and conserving the Court's resources,
Plaintiffs and the Defendant hereby move the Court to enter the
attached Agreed Order.

Global Finishing produces product finishing equipment. The Company
offers paint booths, spray booths, prep stations, paint and mixing
rooms.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hKyxnR at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Beth E. Bertelson, Esq.
          BERTELSON LAW OFFICES, PA
          333 Washington Avenue North
          Union Plaza, Suite 402
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 278-9832
          E-mail: Beth@bertelsonlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sharon Mollman Elliott, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          22 East Mifflin Street, Suite 800
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 807-5280
          Facsimile: (608) 260-0058
          E-mail: Sharon.Elliott@JacksonLewis.com

GLOBAL TILING: De Leon Sues Over Tile Installers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILBUR DE LEON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL TILING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00655-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., Dec. 7, 2022) seeks declaratory
relief and unpaid overtime pay, liquidated damages, fees and costs,
and any other remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
California Labor Code, and the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a tile installer
from approximately September 2021 to the present day. He is tasked
to perform physically demanding floor installation and repair labor
around the United States of America, including in California and
Hawaii.

Global Tiling, Inc. is a North Carolina-based tile contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Telephone: (800) 288-1529
          E-mail: BLKinsley@crumleyroberts.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Benjamin Lin, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  ben.lin@jtblawgroup.com

GLOCK INC: Parties Stipulate to Continue Class Cert Briefing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN C. JOHNSON, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. GLOCK, INC., a Georgia Corporation; GLOCK Ges.m.b.H, an Austrian
entity; JOHN and JANE DOES I through V; ABC CORPORATIONS I-X, XYZ
PARTNERSHIPS, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIPS and/or JOINT VENTURES I-X, GUN
COMPONENT MANUFACTURERS I-V, Case No. 3:20-cv-08807-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs Parties stipulate to continue the class
certification briefing schedule as follows:

   1. The new deadline for Plaintiff           June 7, 2023
      to file his Motion for Class
      Certification:

   2. The new deadline for Defendants          August 7, 2023
      to file an Opposition to
      Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification is:

   3. The new deadline for Plaintiff           October 6, 2023
      to file his Reply in support
      of his Motion for Class
      Certification is:

   4. The new hearing date on                  October 25, 2023
      Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification is:

Glock is a weapons manufacturer headquartered in Deutsch-Wagram,
Austria, named after its founder, Gaston Glock.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WXX9bZ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          Jake W. Schulte, 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
                  jschulte@nicholaslaw.org

                - and -

          Robert K. Lewis, Esq.
          Amy M. Pokora, Esq.
          LEWIS AND LEWIS
          TRIAL LAWYERS, PLC
          28150 N Alma School Rd, Ste 103-637
          Scottsdale, AZ 85262
          Telephone: (602) 889-6666
          E-mail: Rob@LewisLawFirm.com
                  Amy@LewisLawFirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John F. Renzulli, Esq.
          Christopher Renzulli, Esq.
          Howard B. Schilsky, Esq.
          RENZULLI LAW FIRM, LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 1005
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 285-0700
          Facsimile: (914) 285-1213
          E-mail: jrenzulli@renzullilaw.com
                  crenzulli@renzullilaw.com
                  hschilsky@renzullilaw.com

                - and -

          Paul G. Cereghini, Esq.
          Lauren O. Miller, Esq.
          Carissa Casolari, Esq.
          BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
          1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200
          San Jose, CA 95110
          Telephone: (408) 279-5393
          Facsimile: (408) 279-5845
          E-mail: paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com
                  lauren.miller@bowmanandbrooke.com
                  Carissa.casolari@bowmanandbrooke.com

GOOGLE LLC: Order on Nov. 21, 2022 Discovery Dispute Entered
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE GOOGLE RTB CONSUMER PRIVACY
LITIGATION, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Virginia K. Demarchi entered an order regarding the November 21,
2022 discovery dispute re named plaintiff data redacted version, as
follows:

   1. Google must produce "verticals" information described in
      section II.A by January 31, 2023.

   2. The parties must confer promptly about the time sampling
      issue in section II.B, but no later than January 13, 2023,
      and may submit any remaining dispute for resolution.

   3. The Court denies all other relief requested.

The Plaintiffs and defendant Google ask the Court to resolve a
dispute concerning whether Google has complied with its obligations
to produce named plaintiff data.

In connection with this dispute, the parties provided excerpts from
discovery produced in the Calhoun litigation, which plaintiffs
contend support their position.

The Court held a hearing on this dispute on December 6, 2022. the
Court orders Google to produce information concerning "verticals"
and requires the parties to confer further regarding time
sampling.

This dispute concerns Google's compliance with the Court's August
26, 2022 order resolving the parties' earlier dispute regarding
plaintiffs' discovery of named plaintiff data.

Google 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. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YvPO4T at no extra charge.[CC]


GREATBANC TRUST: Judge Recommends Allowing Zavala to Amend Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARMANDO ZAVALA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY, et
al. Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00239-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California recommends that the Defendants'
motions to seal and the Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint
be granted.

Before the Court is Zavala's motion to amend the complaint, filed
June 29, 2022 and amended on June 30, 2022. GreatBanc does not
oppose the Plaintiff's request to amend the complaint. Defendants
Kevin Kruse, the Kruse-Western, Inc. Board of Directors, and the
Administration Committee ("the Company Defendants") filed an
opposition brief on July 20, 2022. The Plaintiff filed a reply
brief on Aug. 8, 2022. On July 14, 2022, the Company Defendants and
GreatBanc filed requests to seal relating to the motion to amend.

On Feb. 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action
against the Defendants and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, alleging
several claims under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") related to the Defendants' management and administration
of the Western Milling Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ESOP").
The Plaintiff filed his original motion to amend the complaint on
June 29, 2022.

Pursuant to the Court's order, the Plaintiff filed an amended
motion to amend on June 30, 2022. As a part of the proposed Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC"), he seeks the addition of two causes of
action, several defendants, and two plaintiffs as class
representatives. In the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
support of his motion to amend, he explains that the identities of
these proposed new parties and the facts underlying the proposed
two new claims were uncovered pursuant to recent discovery.

GreatBanc does not oppose the Plaintiff's request to amend the
complaint. The Company Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion to
amend, contending that the proposed SAC would be futile because it
is untimely and would not survive motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 12(b)(6)).
They further argue that the Plaintiff fails to show requisite good
cause or lack of prejudice, given that he failed to seek
modification of the Scheduling Order and the Company Defendants
would be unduly prejudiced were this Court to grant leave to amend.
On July 14, 2022, the Company Defendants and GreatBanc filed
requests to seal the documents produced during discovery and newly
cited in the Plaintiff's proposed SAC.

On Sept. 12, 2022, the Defendants' requests to seal and the
Plaintiff's motion to amend were referred to Judge Oberto for
preparation of findings and recommendations.

Having considered the materials at issue and the Plaintiff's lack
of opposition to the Defendants' requests to seal, Judge Oberto
finds that the Defendants have sufficiently demonstrated "good
cause" for filing the 15 identified documents under seal. She says
these materials contain confidential, proprietary information
regarding the Defendants' policies and business operations, and
disclosure of this information could cause Defendants competitive
harm. Furthermore, these materials contain non-public information
of non-parties.

Accordingly, given the privacy interests and potential competitive
harm that may results from public disclosure of this information,
the Defendants have adequately articulated "good cause" for
maintaining confidentiality. To the extent that the Memorandum and
SAC incorporate confidential, sealed information derived the
Documents, Judge Oberto finds it appropriate for that information
to be sealed as well. She therefore recommends that the Defendants'
requests to seal be granted.

Having considered the Plaintiff's motion to amend, Judge Oberto
finds that the Plaintiff was diligent in seeking leave to amend
once the factual bases for the proposed amendments were uncovered.
Further, he has been diligent in seeking discovery generally.
Because the Plaintiff was diligent in seeking to amend the FAC
shortly after discovering the facts that form the basis for his
amendments, Judge Oberto finds good cause to modify the Scheduling
Order.

Finally, Judge Oberto holds that the Plaintiff May Amend the FAC
Under Rule 15. The factors commonly considered to determine the
propriety of a motion for leave to amend are: (1) bad faith, (2)
undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of
amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the
complaint.

Judge Oberto finds that (i) the Company Defendants make no argument
that the Plaintiff filed his motion to amend in bad faith; (ii)
there is absence of any showing of undue prejudice to the Company
Defendants; (iii) the Company Defendants fail to demonstrate that
amendment would be futile; and (iv) the Plaintiff acted with
diligence in seeking leave to amend. She recommends that the
Plaintiff's motion to amend be granted.

The parties are to meet and confer on appropriate redactions to the
Memorandum and SAC, to file an unredacted copy of both documents
under seal, and to file a redacted version of both documents
publicly on the Court's docket. These Findings and Recommendations
will be submitted to the U.S. District Judge assigned to the case,
pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B).
Within 21 days after being served with these Findings and
Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the
Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that
failure to file objections within the specified time may result in
the waiver of rights on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/ymym47x2 from
Leagle.com.


GREENLIGHT FINANCIAL: Wright Sues Over Illegal Website Wiretapping
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOAN WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREENLIGHT FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-02025-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal., Dec. 20,
2022) alleges violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, and the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant utilized
"session replay" spyware to intercept the Plaintiff's and the Class
Members' electronic computer-to-computer data communications,
including how the Plaintiff and Class Members interacted with the
website, mouse movements and clicks, keystrokes, search items,
information inputted into the website, and pages and content viewed
while visiting the website.

The Defendant intentionally tapped and made unauthorized
interceptions and connections to the Plaintiff and Class Members'
electronic communications to read and understand movement on the
website, as well as everything the Plaintiff and Class Members did
on those pages, the suit says.

GREENLIGHT FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. is a financial technology
company. The Company provides a debit card and money application
designed to help parents raise financially-smart kids. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

GREENSKY HOLDINGS: Faces Garcea Class Suit Over Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE GARCEA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. GREENSKY HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. CACE-22-018450 (Fla.
Cir., Dec. 16, 2022) sues the Defendant for violating the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.

On December 5, 2022, the Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to Plaintiff. The First Communication was a
communication in connection with the collection of the Consumer
Debt. The Communication was sent from noreply@mygreensky.com and
delivered to Plaintiff's personal e-mail address.

The Communication advised that:

   "Your most recent due date has passed and we have still not
   received your payment. Please make a payment immediately to
   avoid any late fees. If you are currently under Disaster
   Relief, please disregard this notice."

The Communication was sent by Defendant to the Plaintiff at 6:01 AM
in Plaintiff's zone, and was received by the Plaintiff at 6:01 AM
in Plaintiff's zone. The Defendant did not have the consent of
Plaintiff to communicate with the Plaintiff between the hours of
9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. As such, by and through the Communication, the
Defendant violated section 559.72(17) of the FCCPA, the suit
claims.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
FCCPA Class:

    "all all persons persons with Florida addresses that
    the Defendant or someone on Defendant's behalf sent an
    electronic mail communication between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in
    connection with the collection of a consumer debt."

GreenSky Holdings provides consumer financing services such as
consumer loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  jen@jibraellaw.com

HARBOR FREIGHT: Stipulated Briefing on Class Certification OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARENCE CARTER, MEL
COMES, DUANE THOMAS, and MARKEITH MITCHELL, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-05451-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Dolly M. Gee entered an order approving stipulated briefing on
class certification as follows:

  1. The Plaintiff shall file the         December 23, 2022
     motion for class certification
     on:

  2. The Defendant may file               January 30, 2023
     opposition to the motion by:

  3. The Plaintiff may file a reply       February 15, 2023
     brief by:

  4. The Class certification hearing      March 3, 2023
     shall be held on:

Harbor Freight is a privately held tool and equipment retailer,
headquartered in Calabasas, California.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FNQhqB at no extra charge.[CC]

HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Ketayi, et al., Seek Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC KETAYI, and MIRYAM
KETAYI, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and for the benefit of the general public, v. HEALTH
ENROLLMENT GROUP, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01198-RSH-KSC (S.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

  1. granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;

  2. Appointing Class Representatives; and

  3. Appointing Class Counsel.

Health Enrollment is a company that operates in the Insurance
industry.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GnfzgR at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David A. Fox, Esq.
          Joanna L. Fox, Esq.
          Russell A. Gold, Esq.
          FOX LAW, APC
          225 W. Plaza Street, Suite 102
          Solana Beach, CA 92075
          Telephone: (858) 256-7616
          Facsimile: (858) 256-7618
          E-mail: dave@foxlawapc.com
                  joanna@foxlawapc.com
                  russ@foxlawapc.com

                - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Macpherson, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  lhurst@bholaw.com
                  jmacpherson@bholaw.com

HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Morales Files Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEJANDRO MORALES, on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. HEALTHCARE
REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No.
2:15-cv-08401-EP-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying the case to proceed as a class action
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23.

Healthcare Revenue provides collection services to health care
sector.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 19,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VoIjtv
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7177
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
                  pstern@kimlf.com

HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Class Conditionally Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PABLO SANCHEZ, and VIOLET
ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and DOES 1–10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-05147-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Vince Chhabria entered an order preliminarily approving settlement
and providing for notice:

   -- The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes
      only (and for no other purpose and with no other effect
      upon the Action, including no effect upon the Action
      should the Agreement not receive Final Approval or should
      the Effective Date not occur), a class defined as follows:

      "All persons who have entered into written contracts with
      Hearst solely pursuant to a home delivery agreement in the
      State of California regarding distribution of newspapers,
      including, but not limited to, the San Francisco
      Chronicle, at any time from July 27, 2016, through the
      date of the Preliminary Approval Order entered by the
      Court, and who do not submit a timely and valid Opt Out."

   -- The Court appoints Pablo Sanchez and Violet Alvarez to
      serve as Class Representatives for the Class. The Court
      finds and appoints Outten & Golden LLP and The Ottinger
      Firm, P.C. jointly as Class Counsel.

   -- All Settlement Class Members who do not exclude themselves
      from the Settlement Class by properly and timely
      submitting an Opt Out shall be bound by all determinations
      and judgments in the Action concerning the Settlement,
      whether favorable or unfavorable to the Settlement Class.

Hearst is an American multinational mass media and business
information conglomerate based in Hearst Tower in Midtown
Manhattan, New York City.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wwnrlq at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Theanne Liu, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
                  tliu@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Robert Ottinger, Esq.
          Finn Dusenbery, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          535 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 262-0096
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
          E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com
                  finn@ottingerlaw.com

HFS FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Wallach Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
AARON WALLACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HFS FINANCIAL LLC; and LARRY COLLINS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03287-MJM (D. Md., Dec. 20, 2022) is
an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and
the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

Plaintiff Wallach was employed by the Defendants as loan
consultant.

HFS FINANCIAL LLC operates as a loan agency in Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          IPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

               - and -

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Telephone: (817) 416-5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
          Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com

HRL LABORATORIES: O'Connor Seeks Engineers' Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCESCA O'CONNOR and TATYANA CHALIK, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HRL LABORATORIES,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
37-2022-00048942-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Dec. 7,
2022) is a class action under California Code of Civil Procedure
seeking unreimbursed business expenses and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs under California Labor Code and California Code of
Civil Procedure, and restitution under California's Unfair
Competition Law, on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other current and
former employees employed by the Defendant.

The complaint alleges that HRL does not reimburse, and has not
reimbursed, Class Members for necessary expenses that they have
incurred in working remotely to perform their job duties. These
expenses include, but are not limited to, the costs of Internet,
mobile phone use, and other equipment or services associated with
working remotely such as modems, laptops, monitors, and utilities.

Plaintiff O'Connor was employed by Defendant full-time from
September 2020 to February 2022 in California as an Engineer IV.

Plaintiff Chalik was employed by Defendant full-time from August
2020 to August 2021 in California as an Engineer I.

HRL Laboratories, LLC is a limited liability company formed in
Delaware that employs scientists and engineers to conduct research
and provide technology solutions in various industries such as
aircraft, automobiles, and consumer products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William Jhaveri-Weeks, Esq.
          Sarah Abraham, Esq.
          Ally Girouard, Esq.
          THE JHAVERI-WEEKS FIRM, P.C.
          351 California Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 463-8097
          Facsimile: (415) 367-1439
          E-mail: wjw@jhaveriweeks.com
                  sa@jhaveriweeks.com
                  ag@jhaveriweeks.com

               - and -

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Polina Brandler, Esq.
          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
          1201 Pacific Ave., Suite 600
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385   
          E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
                  pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
                  acherniak@hammondlawpc.com

IKEA US: Court Dismisses Dukich Action for Lack of Jurisdiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA and JOHN DUKICH, et
al., v. IKEA US RETAIL LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02182-HB (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Bartle entered a memorandum dismissing the
Dukich action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Court said, "In sum, Samantha Meyer's proposed class does not
satisfy the threshold ascertainability requirement. Although the
court finds that Meyers has demonstrated numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequate representation, the four Rule 23(a)
factors, she has not shown that her proposed class satisfies the
Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of predominance and superiority. The
court will deny Myers's motion for class certification. Without
class certification, the individual claim of Samantha Meyers
related to her purchases of recalled furniture, totaling $328, does
not satisfy the necessary amount in controversy under 28 U.S.C.
section 1332(a)."

Ms. Meyers purchased furniture from defendants IKEA US Retail LLC
and IKEA North America Services LLC ("IKEA") that is subject to a
recall announced by IKEA in coordination with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission ("CPSC").

She brings this putative class action against IKEA under the Class
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d), for violation of
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
("UTPCPL"), and for negligence.

Before the court is Meyers's motion to certify, under Rule 23(b)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a class consisting of
every IKEA customer in the United States and its territories:

   (1) who had no notice of the recall prior to May 6, 2020;

   (2) who possesses at least one IKEA chest or dresser subject
       to the recall at the time of class notice; and

   (3) for whom IKEA had an email address as of October 7, 2022.

Before announcing the 2016 recall, IKEA entered into a "corrective
action plan" ("CAP") with the CPSC on June 15, 2016. The CAP covers
all MALM and non-MALM chests and dressers in specified sizes that
do not comply with safety performance requirements.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WKDVq9 at no extra charge.[CC]

INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Filing Extended to June 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID YUREVICH, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company operating at: DOUBLETREE SAN PEDRO; INTERSTATE
HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.; AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY, LCC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 – 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-03713-MEMF-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame
Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order granting joint stipulation
to extend class certification schedule as follows:

-- The Class Discovery cut-off is         April 18, 2023
    extended to:

-- The deadline to file a Motion          June 21, 2023
    for Class Certification is
    extended to:

-- The deadline to file an                August 28, 2023
    Opposition to the Motion for
    Class Certification is extended
    to:

-- The deadline to file a Reply in        September 29, 2023
    support of Class Certification is
    extended to:

-- The hearing on the Motion for          October 26, 2023
    Class Certification will be held
    on:

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wk2Tgf at no extra charge.[CC]


IRIS ENERGY: Malouf Files Suit Over Share Price Decline
-------------------------------------------------------
JARRYD ANTHONY MALOUF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IRIS ENERGY LIMITED, DANIEL
ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, BELINDA NUCIFORA, DAVID BARTHOLOMEW,
CHRISTOPHER GUZOWSKI, and MICHAEL ALFRED, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-07137 (D.N.J., Dec. 7, 2022) is a federal securities class
action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired: (a) Iris ordinary shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the
Company's initial public offering conducted on or about November
17, 2021; and/or (b) Iris securities between November 17, 2021 and
November 1, 2022, both dates inclusive, pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering
Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) certain of Iris' Bitcoin
miners, owned through its Non-Recourse SPVs, were unlikely to
produce sufficient cash flow to service their respective debt
financing obligations; (ii) accordingly, Iris' use of equipment
financing agreements to procure Bitcoin miners was not as
sustainable as Defendants had represented; (iii) the foregoing was
likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's
business, operations, and financial condition; and (iv) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein, says
the suit.

On this news, Iris' ordinary share price fell $0.51 per share, or
15.04%, to close at $2.88 per share on November 2, 2022 -- a nearly
90% decline from the Offering price. As of the time this Complaint
was filed, Iris' ordinary shares continue to trade significantly
below the $28 per share Offering price, damaging investors, the
suit alleges.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have allegedly
suffered significant losses and damages.

Iris Energy Limited is an Australia-based sustainable Bitcoin
mining company that supports local communities, as well as the
decarbonization of energy markets and the global Bitcoin
network.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016  
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

JAB EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Snide Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
SARA SNIDE; JONATHEN SNIDE; and BRITTANY HAMMITT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAB
EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01373-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 20, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery
drivers.

JAB EXPRESS, INC. owns and operates a package delivery service.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
          GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
          The White House
          7030 E. Genesee Street
          Fayetteville, NY 13066
          Telephone: (315) 314-8000
          Email: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com

               - and -

          James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
          Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          Email: jmurphy@vandallp.com

JLT RISK: Averts Class Action Over Government Insurance Mutuals
---------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNews.com.au reports that the NSW Supreme Court has found
in favour of JLT in a class action launched over local government
insurance mutuals.

Justice Kate Williams, who had heard evidence for almost a month
before reserving her decision more than a year ago, said in court
this afternoon that the plantiff's claims for relief should be
dismissed.

"For the reasons I now publish each of the plantiff's three causes
of action fail," she said.

A spokesperson for JLT, which is now part of Marsh McLennan said
the firm was pleased the court had ruled in its favour.

"JLT has always stated that it would vigorously defend its position
in the class action as we strongly believed that the allegations
were misconceived," the spokesperson told insuranceNEWS.com.au. "We
are currently in the process of reviewing the judgment in detail."

Richmond Valley Council began the NSW Supreme Court action on
behalf of a number of councils in 2018, alleging JLT breached its
broker duties and arranged cover "at less advantageous rates than
were available".

JLT says it didn't act as an insurance broker for the group and
"when fairly looked at" cover arranged was not less advantageous
and councils suffered no loss or damage.

A spokesperson for law firm Quinn Emanuel, which acted for Richmond
Valley Council, says the lengthy judgment is being considered, and
the clients will be taking advice in terms of next steps, including
whether to appeal. [GN]

JOHNS HOPKINS: Class Settlement in Botts Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELENA BOTTS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNS HOPKINS
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01335-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge
Julie R. Rubin entered an order preliminarily approving settlement
and directing notice to settlement class.

  1. The Settlement Class, defined as

     "all people who paid the Defendant Johns Hopkins University
     tuition and/or fees for the Spring Semester 2020 for in-
     person educational services, which tuition and fees have
     not been refunded," appropriately encompasses those
     individuals who may assert the claims alleged in Counts I
     and II of Named Plaintiff Elena Botts's Amended Complaint
     against Defendant Johns Hopkins University."

  2. The Settlement Agreement entered between the parties as of
     December 9, 2022,  appears, upon preliminary review, to be
     fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class.

  3. Accordingly, for settlement purposes only, the proposed
     settlement is preliminarily approved, pending a Final
     Approval Hearing.

  4. The Court finds that the Settlement Class contains 8,603
     individuals.

  5. The Court finds that Named Plaintiff Elena Botts has and
     will continue to adequately represent the Settlement Class
     and hereby appoints her class representative.

  6. The Court finds that the attorneys for Named Plaintiff,
     James A. Francis, John Soumilas, Kevin C. Mallon, and
     Jordan M. Sartell of Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. and
     Courtney Weiner of the Law Office of Courtney Weiner PLLC,
     have and will continue to adequately represent the
     Settlement Class and hereby appoints them Class Counsel.

  7. The Court appoints JND Legal Administration as the
     Settlement Administrator.

Johns Hopkins University is a private research university in
Baltimore, Maryland. Founded in 1876, Johns Hopkins is the oldest
research university in the United States and in the western
hemisphere.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HZdvfT at no extra charge.[CC]

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Noohi Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. is taking an appeal from a court
order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in
the lawsuit entitled Narguess Noohi, Plaintiff, v. Johnson and
Johnson Consumer Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03575-TJH-JEM,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed this class action against the Defendant for alleged false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its product, Neutrogena Oil-Free Face Moisturizer for Sensitive
Skin.

On July 13, 2020, the Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint.

On July 8, 2021, the Plaintiff filed its second amended complaint
(SAC), which alleged four claims: (1) common law fraud; (2)
violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL); (3)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); and (4)
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

On May 2, 2022, the Plaintiff moved to certify this putative class
action on behalf of all consumers who purchased the product in
California between April 17, 2016, and the date of this Order, as
to her FAL, UCL, and CLRA claims. The Plaintiff does not seek to
certify her common law fraud claim.

On Nov. 30, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification through an Order entered by Judge Terry J.
Hatter, Jr. The Court determined that the Plaintiff satisfied both
Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements.

The appellate case is captioned Narguess Noohi v. Johnson and
Johnson Consumer Inc., Case No. 22-80143, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 15, 2022.
[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent NARGUESS NOOHI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Adrian Bacon, Esq.
            Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
            LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN, PC
            21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
            Woodland Hills, CA 91364
            Telephone: (323) 306-4234

Defendant-Petitioner JOHNSON AND JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. is
represented by:

            Hannah Y.S. Chanoine, Esq.
            Matthew David Powers, Esq.
            O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
            7 Times Square
            New York, NY 10036
            Telephone: (212) 326-2000
                       (415) 984-8898

JOYCE CAMPBELL: Caddell, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anselm Caddell, et al., v.
Joyce Campbell, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00091-DRC-SKB (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order

   1. certifying the action pursuant to Rule 23 to proceed as a
      class action on behalf of:

      "Plaintiffs and those individuals subject to a warrantless
      arrest by City of Fairfield Police Officers from February
      1, 2017 until February 28, 2019, and who were held by the
      Butler County Sheriff’s office for more than 48 hours on
      charges pending in the Fairfield Municipal Court, if held
      without a post-arrest probable cause determination by a
      judicial officer and not otherwise subject to lawful
      detention;"

   2. appointing Messrs. Caddell and Lawson as Class
      Representatives; and

   3. appointing their Counsel as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs contend that Rule 23(a) has been satisfied as the
putative class proposed by the agreed definition of the parties
complies with each of the requirements of 23(a)(1) through (4).
This case further meets the parameters of Rule 23(b)(3).

The case is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and concerns
allegations by the Plaintiffs that they and other individuals
arrested within the borders of the City of Fairfield were denied
their constitutional right to a prompt appearance before a judicial
officer.

The Plaintiffs allege their detention was violative of the "48-hour
rule" announced in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) and County
of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991). The Plaintiffs
further allege these violations were the result of the policies and
customs of the defendants.

The Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs and other individuals
were held for more than 48 hours but Defendants each
deny their respective liability and reserve their right to dispute
which putative members are in fact proper members of the class or
were held for other lawful reasons.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FWhWFY at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul M. Laufman, Esq.
          Gregory A. Napolitano, Esq.
          LAUFMAN NAPOLITANO, LLC
          4310 Hunt Road
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Telephone: (513) 621-4556
          Facsimile: (513) 621-5563
          E-mail: gnapolitano@LN-lawfirm.com
                  plaufman@LN-lawfirm.com

JUUL LABS: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Juul Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales
Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No.
3:19-md-02913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of the
      class action claims in this litigation as against certain
      Defendants;

   2. finding that certification for purposes of settlement of
      the Settlement Class defined as follows is likely:

      "All individuals who purchased, in the United States, a
      JUUL Product from brick and mortar or online retailer
      before December 6, 2022;

   3. preliminarily approving the proposed Plan of Allocation;

   4. approving and ordering the implementation of the proposed
      Notice Plan;

   5. authorizing the payment of initial settlement
      administration expenses; and

   6. setting a date for a Final Approval Hearing.

Class Plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of a $255,000,000
settlement with JLI, James Monsees, Adam Bowen, Riaz Valani,
Nicholas Pritzker, and Hoyoung Huh.

While the litigation has been complex and challenging, the proposed
settlement is  simple: the Settlement Class gets a $255 million,
non-reversionary fund in exchange for releasing their economic loss
claims. This settlement, which is the result of years of mediation
overseen by Special Master Thomas J. Perrelli, resolves the Class
claims against all defendants other than Altria, against whom the
litigation will continue.

Following completion of class certification related discovery,
Plaintiffs Bradley Colgate, Class Certification Joseph DiGiacinto
on behalf of C.D., Lauren Gregg, Tyler Krauel, and Jill Nelson on
behalf of L.B. moved to certify four classes of purchasers of JUUL
products for purposes of trial on Class Plaintiffs' bellwether
claims (under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO") and California law.

On June 28, 2022, the Court granted the motion, appointed those
individuals as class representatives, and denied all pending
Daubert motions.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YINesl at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California St., Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com


KINDER MORGAN: Partly Wins Bid to Compel Initial Disclosures
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRAIG HAMELIN and MICHAEL
McCARRON, Individually, and as representatives of all others
similarly situated, v. KINDER MORGAN, INC., KINDER MORGAN ENERGY
PARTNERS, L.P., TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE CO., LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-30054-MGM (D. Mass), the Hon. Judge Katherine A. Robertson
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' motion to compel initial disclosures and discovery from
Plaintiffs.

  -- To the extent this order requires the plaintiffs to produce
     documents, sign releases for medical records, or provide a
     privilege log or supplemental response, the plaintiffs
     should comply with this order by no later than January 19,
     2023. No fees or costs to any party.

Mr. McCarron has filed suit on behalf of himself and similarly
situated individuals who worked on gas pipelines connected to the
Tennessee Gas Pipeline and were allegedly exposed to radiation on
the job, thereby increasing their risk of developing cancer in the
future.

The Plaintiff Craig Hamelin has developed a rare blood cancer and
alleges that it was caused by exposure to radiation on the job.

The plaintiffs, who are long-term former employees of the Berkshire
Gas Company, seek to certify a class of persons who "ever worked on
gas pipelines connected to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline for a minimum
of four years and have not yet been diagnosed with bone, blood or
lung cancer"

According to the plaintiffs, Tennessee Gas Company (TGP) operations
disturb and distribute naturally occurring
radioactive material. The most commonly occurring radioactive
element in oil and gas production is radium, which tends to build
up in fluids and as scale on pipeline equipment.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FOlDxd at no extra charge.[CC]


LAUNDRESS LLC: Cleaning Products Contains Bacteria, Ostenfeld Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LORI OSTENFELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v THE LAUNDRESS, LLC; and CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a
UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-10667 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2022) seeks to remedy injuries
from the Defendants' deceptive and misleading conduct in
manufacturing, marketing, and selling contaminated detergents,
household cleaning solutions, and shampoos as well as seeks to hold
the Defendants accountable for manufacturing and selling the
Products contaminated with bacteria that have injured the Plaintiff
and the Class.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have
improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed the
Products to reasonable consumers, like the Plaintiff and the Class,
by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that
the Products were contaminated with bacteria that increases the
risk of injury to consumers and their families.

Had the Defendants not made the false, misleading, and deceptive
representations and omissions regarding the contents of the
Products, the Plaintiff would not have bought the Products and
would not have used them or been injured by them, says the suit.

THE LAUNDRESS, LLC provides plant-derived laundry and home cleaning
products that preserve clothing and deep clean every room. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          305 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          Email: stephen@sfclasslaw.com

LEE ENTERPRISES: Stoudemire Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTNEY STOUDEMIRE; AMANDA VOSE; LUCINDA JACKSON; DANA FOLEY;
DOUGLAS CASTLE; and BARBARA GRAZIOLI, individually and on of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. e 3:22-cv-00086-SHL-SBJ (S.D. Iowa., Dec. 19,
2022) alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant does not
adequately disclose on the Lee Sites, that subscribers' personal
identifying information is captured by tracking methods utilized by
the Defendant (referred to as the "Tracking Methods"), and then
transferred to Facebook.

The Defendant has implemented and utilized the Tracking Methods
which track user activity on the Lee Sites and disclose that
information to Facebook. The Defendant causes users' personally
identifiable information ("PII") and Video Watching Data to be
shared with Facebook, in violation of the VPPA. The Defendant does
not seek and has not obtained consent from Subscribers to utilize
the Tracking Methods, says the suit.

LEE ENTERPRISES, INC. operates as a media company. The Company
publishes newspapers, weekly, classified, and specialty
publications, as well as offers online services, including websites
supporting its daily newspapers and other publications. Lee
Enterprises serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          Brian O. Marty, Esq.
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
          Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
                marty@sagwlaw.com

                - and -

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
          Gary I. Ishimoto, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          Email: mreich@zlk.com
                 cmaccarone@zlk.com
                 gishimoto@zlk.com

LENDING BUG: Kauffman Sues Over Illegal Phone Call Recording
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KAUFFMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LENDING BUG, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-01925-JLS-KSC (S.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's conduct of following a policy and practice of using a
telecommunications system that enabled it to surreptitiously record
cellular telephone communications of Plaintiff and Class members in
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California
Penal Code.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all persons in
California whose cellular telephone conversations were recorded by
Defendant without their consent. He asserts that the Defendant
violated his constitutionally protected privacy rights by failing
to advise or otherwise provide notice at the beginning of the
telephone conversation(s) with Plaintiff that the call(s) would be
recorded, and Defendant did not try to obtain Plaintiff's consent
before such recording.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California, County of
San Diego, who received a call from an agent of Defendant on
November 22, 2022 in an attempt to sell a mortgage.

Lending Bug, Inc. is a Michigan-based lending company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (866) 219-3343
          E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com

               - and -

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

LOUISIANA: Victor Seeks to Add Offenders to Party Petitioners
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REV. EROL VICTOR SR. v.
STATE OF LOUISIANA ET AL, Case No. 2:22-cv-01539-CJB-DMD (E.D.
La.), the Rev. Errol Victor, Sr., moves for the listed incarcerated
offenders with a 10-2 or 11-1 verdict names to be added as an
indispensable party petitioner to the civil action sub judice:

The listed incarcerated offenders include Charles Gray; Dveil
Freeman; Kendall Milton; Steve Stewart; Gregory Thomas; Joseph
Holmes; Rodney White; Carlwyn Turner; William Brossette; Austin
Ilernard; Michael Turner; Claude Roberson; Willie Dunn; Elvis
Singleton; Michael Johnson; Richard Darby; Bradely Berry; Hampton
Robinson; Roderick Vidau; Anthony Pludohmme; Kevin Lewis; and
Raymond McGary.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hPkXQf at no extra
charge.[CC]

MARCUS MYERS: Thibodeaux Seeks More Time to File Objections
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karl Thibodeaux v. Marcus
Myers, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01630-DCJ-JPM (W.D. La.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time for
which to file "Objections" to Magistrate Report and Recommendation
and/or a "Reply" to any other proposed "Responses" filed by the
Defendants.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YMnmfh at no extra
charge.




MARINE CREDIT: Monroe FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MONROE, v. MARINE
CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:21-cv-00329-SCD (E.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge Stephen C. Dries entered an order:

   1. certifying, for the purposes of settlement, the action as
      a collective action of the following individuals pursuant
      to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as amended, 29
      U.S.C. section 216(b):

      The six hourly-paid, non-exempt Mortgage Loan
      Representatives employed by Defendant within the two years
      immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint who
      recorded a meal period and/or rest break of short duration
      of less than 30 consecutive minutes in Defendant's
      electronic timekeeping system and who filed their Consent
      to Join Forms with the Court;

   2. appointing the named plaintiff, Robert Monroe, as
      Collective Representative for the FLSA Collective;

   3. appointing Walcheske & Luzi, LLC, as Collective Counsel
      for the FLSA Collective;

   4. approving the parties' Settlement Agreement as a fair and
      reasonable resolution of a bona fide wage dispute under
      the FLSA;

   5. instructing the Defendant's counsel to provide Plaintiff's
      counsel with settlement checks for the Settlement Class
      within 14 calendar days of the Order;

   7. instructing Collective Counsel to promptly send the
      settlement checks to the FLSA Collective members via U.S.
      Mail following receipt of the settlement checks from
      Defendant's counsel;

   8. instructing that the FLSA Collective Members have one-
      hundred and 120 days to cash their individual settlement
      checks, otherwise the individual settlement checks and
      amounts will revert to and be retained by Defendant; and

   9. dismissing with prejudice the FLSA Collective members'
      released FLSA WWPCL claims

Marine Credit is a member-owned financial cooperative headquartered
in La Crosse, Wisconsin.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hPAuzC at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1917: Court Approves Notice of Direct Purchaser Class Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust
Litigation (MDL No. 1917), Case No. 4:07-cv-05944-JST (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order approving notice of
direct purchaser class certification:

  -- The Court approves the form of the long form notice.

  -- The Court also approves the form of the summary notice.

  -- The Court finds that taken together, mailing of the Notice
     (U.S. Mail and/or electronic mail), publication of the
     Summary Notice, and posting of the Notice to the Internet
     are:

          (i) the best notice practicable;

         (ii) reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to
              apprise class members of the certification of this
              matter and of their right to exclude themselves;

        (iii) reasonable and constitute due, adequate, and
              sufficient notice to all persons entitled to
              receive notice; and

         (iv) meet all applicable requirements of due process
              and any other applicable requirements under
              federal law.

  -- The Plaintiffs' settlement administrator shall provide
     notice of the class certification to class members. The
     settlement administrator shall provide direct notice of
     class certification to all members of the Litigated Class
     on or before a date set 21 days from the entry of the
     Order.

  -- Each class member shall have the right to be excluded from
     the Litigated Class by mailing a request for exclusion to
     the settlement administrator no later than a date set, at
     least 45 days after mailing of the direct notice.

  -- Any class member who does not properly and timely request
     exclusion from the Litigated Class as provided above shall
     be bound by the District Court's rulings in the lawsuit,
     including any final judgment.

On August 31, 2022, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a motion to
disseminate notice of Direct Purchaser Class Certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vo9yVf at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2566: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Fraud Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation
(MDL No. 2566), Case No. 4:14-md-02566 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge
Timothy S. Hillman entered a scheduling order as follows:

  -- Requests for production of            April 7, 2023
     documents and interrogatories
     served by:

  -- Requests for admissions served        May 19, 2023
     by:

  -- Fact Discovery to be completed        June 30, 2023
     by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' trial experts         June 9, 2023
     must be designated by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' trial experts         July 21, 2023
     must be deposed by:

  -- Defendants' trial experts must        July 7, 2023
     be designated by:

  -- The Defendants' trial experts         Aug. 11, 2023
     must be deposed by:

  -- Dispositive Motions due by:           Sept. 29, 2023

  -- All motions for class
     certification due by:                 Sept. 29, 2023

  -- Responses to dispositive              60 days after
     motions due:                          service

The nature of suit contract -- securities fraud.[CC]

MDL 2918: Class Cert Briefing Sched Amended in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension
Assemblies Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2918), Case No.
3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney
entered an order amending briefing schedule on end-user and
reseller plaintiffs' motions for class certification as follows:

  -- The Defendants' Oppositions to        December 23, 2022
     Motions for Class Certification,
     expert reports in opposition to
     class certification, and any
     motions to exclude any opinions
     of End-User Plaintiffs' or
     Reseller Plaintiffs' experts will
     be due on:

  -- Class Plaintiffs' Replies and         March 6, 2023.
     expert rebuttal reports in support
     of their Motions for Class
     Certification, and any oppositions
     to any motions of Defendants to
     exclude opinions of Plaintiffs'
     experts will be due on:

The actions in these MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. All actions share complex factual questions arising
from allegations that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive
suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May
2008 through at least April 2016.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PXthdh at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William V. Reiss, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: wreiss@robinskaplan.com

                - and -

          Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1230
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
          E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com

                - and -

          Victoria Sims, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: vicky@cuneolaw.com

                - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          LARSON • KING, LLP
          30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6518
          Facsimile: (651) 789-4818
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark H. Hamer, Esq.
          Mark G. Weiss, Esq.
          BAKER MCKENZIE LLP
          815 Connecticut Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 452-7077
          Facsimile: (202) 416-7177
          E-mail: mark.hamer@bakermckenzie.com
                  mark.weiss@bakermckenzie.com

                - and -

          J. Clayton Everett, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 739-5860
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: clay.everett@morganlewis.com

MDL 2918: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert Briefing Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension
Assemblies Antitrust Litigation (MDL 2918), Case No.
3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and ask Court
to enter an order amending briefing schedule on end-user and
reseller plaintiffs' motions for class certification:

   1. The Defendants' Oppositions to           Dec. 23, 2022
      Motions for Class Certification,
      expert reports in opposition to
      class certification, and any
      motions to exclude any opinions
      of End-User Plaintiffs' or Reseller
      Plaintiffs' experts will be due on:
      and

   2. Class Plaintiffs' Replies and expert     March 6, 2023
      rebuttal reports in support of their
      Motions for Class Certification, and
      any oppositions to any motions of
      Defendants to exclude opinions of
      Plaintiffs' experts will be due on:

All actions of this MDL share complex factual questions arising
from allegations that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive
suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May
2008 through at least April 2016.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hIIySK at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William V. Reiss, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: wreiss@robinskaplan.com

                - and -

          Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1230
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
          E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com

                - and -

          Victoria Sims, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: vicky@cuneolaw.com

                - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          LARSON • KING, LLP
          30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6518
          Facsimile: (651) 789-4818
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

Counsel for the Defendants NHK Spring Co., Ltd., NHK International
Corporation, NHK (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., and NAT Peripheral (H.K.)
Co., Ltd., are:

          Mark H. Hamer, Esq.
          Mark G. Weiss, Esq.
          BAKER MCKENZIE LLP
          815 Connecticut Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 452-7077
          Facsimile: (202) 416-7177
          E-mail: mark.hamer@bakermckenzie.com
                  mark.weiss@bakermckenzie.com

Counsel for the Defendants TDK Corporation, Hutchinson Technology
Inc., Magnecomp Precision Technology Public Co., Ltd., and SAE
Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd., are:

          J. Clayton Everett, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 739-5860
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: clay.everett@morganlewis.com

MDL 3001: Appeals Partial Dismissal of Illegal Gambling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
GOOGLE LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting
in part and denying in part their motions to dismiss in the lawsuit
entitled In Re: Google Play Store Simulated Casino Style Games
Litigation, Case No. 5:21-md-03001-EJD, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The Plaintiffs brought this class action complaint against
Defendants Apple, Google, and Facebook for violating various state
consumer protection laws by distributing game applications that
operate as social casinos and thus permit illegal gambling.

On April 8, 2022, the Defendants moved to dismiss the case, which
Judge Edward J. Davila granted in part and denied in part on Sept.
2, 2022. The Court held that the Plaintiffs' first and third
theories of liability must be dismissed under section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act. However, the Plaintiffs' second theory
of liability is not barred by section 230.

The appellate case is captioned Jennifer Andrews, et al. v. Google
LLC, et al., Case No. 22-16921, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 15, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Google LLC and Google Payment Corp.'s Mediation
Questionnaire was due December 22, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on February 13, 2023;

   -- Appellants Google LLC and Google Payment Corp.'s opening
brief is due on March 23, 2023;

   -- Appellees Jennifer Andrews, Michael Brown, Terri Bruschi,
Clint Englebretson, Amanda Klotz, Frances Long, Shellie Lords,
Erica Montoya, John Sarley, Edgar Smith, John Sparks and Maria
Valencia-Torres answering brief is due on April 24, 2023; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JENNIFER ANDREWS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
            Todd Logan, Esq.
            EDELSON, PC
            150 California Street, 18th Floor
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 212-9300

                    - and -

            Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq.
            EDELSON PC
            350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
            Chicago, IL 60654
            Telephone: (312) 589-6370

                    - and -

            Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
            John E. Norris, Esq.
            Dargan Maner Ware, Esq.
            DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
            2154 Highland Avenue, South
            Birmingham, AL 35205
            Telephone: (205) 930-9976
                       (205) 541-7759
                       (205) 930-9900

                    - and -

            Gregory Scott Dovel, Esq.
            DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
            201 Santa Monica Boulevard
            Santa Monica, CA 90401
            Telephone: (310) 656-7066

                    - and -

            Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, PA
            888 7th Avenue
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (646) 837-7150

                    - and -

            Cecily Jordan, Esq.
            TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, PLLC
            1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700
            Seattle, WA 98101
            Telephone: (206) 682-5600

                    - and -

            Jill M. Manning, Esq.
            PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
            555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1205
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 433-9000

                    - and -

            Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, PA
            701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
            Miami, FL 10019
            Telephone: (305) 330-5512

                    - and -

            Jason Henry Alperstein, Esq.
            KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
            One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
            Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
            Telephone: (954) 525-4100

                    - and -

            Glenn Chappell Esq.
            Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
            Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
            TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
            2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
            Washington, DC 20006
            Telephone: (202) 973-0900

                    - and -

            Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq.
            PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
            15165 Ventura Boulevard
            Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
            Telephone: (818) 788-8300

                    - and -

            Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
            PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
            328 Barry Avenue, S., Suite 200
            Wayzata, MN 55391
            Telephone: (612) 389-0600

Defendants-Appellants GOOGLE LLC, et al. are represented by:

            Teresa Michaud, Esq.
            BAKER MCKENZIE, LLP
            10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1850
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 201-4725

                    - and -

            Bradford K. Newman, Esq.
            BAKER & MCKENZIE, LLP
            600 Hansen Way
            Palo Alto, CA 94304
            Telephone: (650) 856-2400

MEDIGAP LIFE: Johnson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIRGINIA JOHNSON, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. MEDIGAP LIFE,
LLC, Case No. 9:22-cv-81427-WM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting a 30-day extension of time to file
her motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff initiated this class action on September 13, 2022,
and Defendant answered the complaint on October 28, 2022.

On November 8, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to vacate the
trial date and bifurcate discovery. The motion was fully briefed on
November 29, 2022, and the Court denied the motion on December 2,
2022.

On November 30, 2022, Magistrate Matthewman held a scheduling
conference in this action. On December 2, 2022, a pretrial
scheduling order was entered which set a motion for class
certification deadline of December 19, 2022.

On December 8, 2022, the parties held their Rule 26(f) conference.
On December 5, 2022, the Plaintiff served her first set of
discovery on Defendant and is awaiting responses thereto.

The Plaintiff anticipates receiving a response to her discovery
requests by January 9, 2023. The Plaintiff requires responses to
her discovery in advance of her motion for class certification in
order to support her motion with information that is in the sole
control of Defendant.

Moreover, on December 15, 2022, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
636(c), the parties provided consent to proceed before Magistrate
Matthewman and waived their right to proceed before Honorable Judge
Middlebrooks. Accordingly, the parties are awaiting a revised case
management schedule.

Medigap specializes in Medicare Health Plans.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PMgNF8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
                  rachel@kaufmanpa.com

MIDLAND STATES: Faces Garcea Class Suit Over Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE GARCEA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. MIDLAND STATES BANK, INC., Case No. CACE-22-018448
(Fla. Cir, Dec. 16, 2022) sues the Defendant for violating the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

On December 5, 2022, the Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to Plaintiff. The Communication advised that "Your
most recent due date has passed and we have still not received your
payment. Please make a payment immediately to avoid any late fees.
If you are currently under Disaster Relief, please disregard this
notice." The Communication was sent by Defendant to the Plaintiff
at 6:01 AM in Plaintiff's zone, and was received by the Plaintiff
at 6:01 AM in Plaintiff's zone.

The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate
with the Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. As
such, by and through the Communication, the Defendant violated
section 559.72(17) of the FCCPA, the suit claims.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
FCCPA Class:

    "all all persons persons with Florida addresses that
    the Defendant or someone on Defendant's behalf sent an
    electronic mail communication between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in
    connection with the collection of a consumer debt."

Midland States is a financial services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  jen@jibraellaw.com

NAR: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs Burnett, et al.
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT AND RHONDA BURNETT,
RYAN HENDRICKSON, JEROD BREIT, SCOTT TRUPIANO, AND JEREMY KEEL, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP.,
HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., BHH AFFILIATES, LLC, HSF AFFILIATES,
LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-00332-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough
entered an order denying the Defendants' motions for summary
judgment.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has presented genuine disputes
of material fact as to whether Section 2-G-1 and Defendants'
actions in enforcing a scheme to stabilize commission rates
violates the Sherman Act and Missouri's Antitrust Law.

The Court need not repeat its findings here. Further, as there is
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendants' conduct
violated federal and state law, it follows that there is a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether Defendants engaged in unfair
practices that offend public policy.

For those reasons, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment are
denied. The Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to show an
ascertainable loss. Plaintiffs argue that, because they assert they
received nothing of value from the Buyer-Broker, they are not
required to show an ascertainable loss. The Court agrees with
Plaintiffs.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HMV1PU at no extra charge.[CC]

NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Faces Ira Suit Over Unregistered Offerings
-------------------------------------------------------------
KINNIE MA IRA; JEFFERY S. GRAMM IRA; STACY GREASOR IRA; VICTOR WADE
IRA; KAZUE BELL; DEAN CROOKS; CORRI RENE EDEN; CATHERINE KOMINOS;
KAREN LOCH; ROBERT A. STONE LIVING TRUST; and SHIRLEY STONE LIVING
TRUST, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
v. NATIONAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION; NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION;
B. RILEY FINANCIAL, INC.; B. RILEY PRINCIPAL MERGER CORP. III, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01325 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 16, 2022) is a class action
arising out of Defendants' improper conduct in offering and selling
limited partnership interests in the GPB-sponsored Funds at the
direction of Ascendant Capital, LLC.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sold and/or materially
assisted with the sale of the Securities through a massive series
of improperly unregistered public offerings (the "Offerings") in
which the GPB Group paid themselves and a network of numerous
brokers that included the Defendants, exorbitant fees and falsely
promised investors, including the Plaintiffs and the other members
of the Class, prompt dividends of 8% or more per annum from
"operating profits," and an expected net Internal Rate of Return
("IRR") of 15%.

Ascendant Capital, GPB's primary distribution agent, and GPB
Capital Holdings, LLC itself, were in fact both "commonly
controlled" by their principals, David Gentile and Jeffry
Schneider. However, neither GPB, nor Ascendant Capital, nor their
principals made disclosure of this co-ownership and common control
to investors in the offering materials for the Securities or
otherwise. The failure to disclose this gross conflict of interest
-- that the issuers of GPB securities and the purportedly
independent agent selling these securities were commonly controlled
-- rendered the offerings of these Securities illegal, says the
suit.

The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants were actually aware of
material misrepresentations and omissions in the Offering Materials
but effected the Offerings nevertheless -- because of their greed.

National Holdings Corporation, through its subsidiaries, offers
securities brokerage services.

Ascendant is  an alternative asset management firm that was
secretly acting as the general partner of each of the Funds.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jesse Z. Weiss, Esq.
          Ryan Shelton, Esq.
          EDMUNDSON SHELTON WEISS PLLC
          317 Grace Lane, Suite 210
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 596-3058
          Facsimile: (512) 532-6637
          E-mail: ryan@eswpllc.com
                  jesse@eswpllc.com

                - and -

          Peter S. Linden, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: plinden@kaplanfox.com

                - and -

          Richard L. Stone, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. STONE, PLLC
          335 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (561) 358-4800
          E-mail: rstoneesq@rstoneesq.com

NATIONWIDE CHILDREN: Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRI'ANA WILLIAMS, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. NATIONWIDE
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, Case No. 2:22-cv-03518-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):

   (a) Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
       under the FLSA on behalf of Named Plaintiff and others
       similarly situated;

   (b) Directing that notice be sent by United States mail,
       email, and text message (as set forth below) to the
       following:

       "All current and former hourly, non-exempt healthcare
       employees of Defendant who were paid for at least 40
       hours of work in any workweek and had a meal break
       deduction applied to their hours worked beginning three
       years prior to the filing date of this Motion and
       continuing through the final disposition of this case;"

   (c) Approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms;
       and

   (d) Directing Defendant Nationwide Children's Hospital
       ("Defendant") to provide within 14 days an electronic
       spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel or comma-delimited format
       a roster of all individuals that fit the definition above
       that includes their full names, dates of employment,
       position(s), last known mailing addresses, personal email
       addresses, and mobile phone numbers ("Roster").

This case involves the Defendant's unlawful companywide policies
and/or practices, including that it requires meal break deductions
despite hourly healthcare employees not enjoying bona fide meal
breaks.

The Named Plaintiff has worked at the Defendant from February 2022
to the present as an hourly phlebotomist.

The Defendant is a comprehensive pediatric hospitals and research
institutes in the United States and operates multiples healthcare
facilities throughout central Ohio.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite #126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  takers@mcoffmanlegal.com

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Pascal, et al., Lose Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN PASCAL; MARIA
MENGONI; LEISA JOHNSON; EBONY JONES; PATRICK MCMORROW; TINISHA
MILLER; ELIZABETH RODRIGUEZ; LEMAR TAYLOR; JUDI MOORE; BARBARA
MORAS; and ROBERT CARNEVALE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-00492-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L.
Staton entered an order:

   1. granting the defendant's motion to exclude plaintiffs'
      expert testimony;

   2. denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
      and

   3. denying as moot defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs'
      expert declarations.

The Court has excluded the testimony of Plaintiffs' experts, Dr.
Kosmas Galatsis and Peter Leiss. Plaintiffs' position is that their
experts' testimony proves the existence of three distinct defects
that are uniform across all Class Vehicles and is confirmed by the
testimony of Craig Pike, a Nissan engineer.

Court has already concluded that neither Galatsis's nor Leiss's
opinions can serve as proof that all Class Vehicles share the
uniform carbon monoxide defect that Plaintiffs allege.

The Court has also explained that Pike's testimony neither concerns
the Class Vehicles nor confirms Plaintiffs' experts' defect
theory.

Without Galatsis's and Leiss's testimony, Plaintiffs cannot
demonstrate the commonality required under Rule 23(a)(2) -- they
have not proffered any other evidence of a common, uniform defect
in the Class Vehicles.

The Court has detailed the background facts of this action in its
prior orders granting in part Nissan's motions to dismiss
Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint and Fourth Amended Complaint on
July 8, 2021 and June 8, 2022.

On June 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Fifth Amended Complaint
("5AC"), which is the operative complaint. The 5AC alleges that the
following Nissan and Infiniti vehicles share the alleged defect:

  -- 2002–2006 Nissan Altima

  -- 2007–2012 Nissan Altima

  -- 2013–2018 Nissan Altima

  -- 2008–2013 Nissan Altima Coupe

  -- 2004–2008 Nissan Maxima

  -- 2009–2014 Nissan Maxima

  -- 2015–2018 Nissan Maxima

  -- 2003–2007 Nissan Murano

  -- 2009–2014 Nissan Murano

  -- 2015–2018 Nissan Murano

  -- 2014–2018 Infiniti Q50

  -- 2014–2018 Infiniti Q70

The Plaintiffs are six individuals who purchased or leased a Class
Vehicle and experienced the alleged defect. They seek to represent,
and have moved for certification of, four classes of persons who
purchased or leased Class Vehicles:

-- The California Warranty Class: All California residents who
    purchased or leased a 2013–2018 Nissan Altima sedan and
    assert claims for breach of express and implied warranty
    under California law. Pascal and Mengoni seek to represent
    the California Warranty Class.

-- The California Consumer Protection Class: All persons who
    purchased or leased a 2013–2018 Nissan Altima sedan in
    California and assert claims under California's Consumer
    Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and Unfair Competition Law
    ("UCL"). Pascal, Mengoni, McMorrow, and Miller seek to
    represent the California Consumer Protection Class.

-- The New Jersey Consumer Protection Class: All persons who
    purchased or leased a 2013–2018 Nissan Altima sedan in New
    Jersey and assert claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
    Act. Moras seeks to represent the New Jersey Consumer
    Protection Class.

-- The New York Consumer Protection Class: All persons who
    purchased or leased a 2013–2018 Nissan Altima sedan in New
    York and assert claims under New York General Business Law.
    Carnevale seeks to represent the New York Consumer
    Protection Class.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of these classes pursuant to both
Rule 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs contend that,
notwithstanding any differences in the applicable state laws, the
consumer protection statutes are substantially similar and claims
brought under those statutes can be substantiated with evidence
common to all members of each class.

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

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

OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Class Cert. Response Deadlines Extended
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as  Pauli v. Ollie's Bargain
Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae
A. D'Agostino entered an order granting the defendants request for
an extension of the response and reply deadlines regarding motion
to certify class:

   -- Response to Motion due by Jan. 30, 2023.

   -- Reply to Response to Motion due by Feb. 24, 2023.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ollie's Bargain Outlet offers brand name merchandise at up to 70%
off the fancy store prices.[CC]

PELICAN INVESTMENT: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Webb TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
PELICAN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal
from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Dean Webb, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-00699-CJC-ADS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
which was removed from Superior Court, County of Orange, is brought
against the Defendants for placing telephone calls to consumers,
including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote and sell
services, without obtaining prior consent in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On Sept. 19, 2022, Defendants Sing for Service, LLC d/b/a Mepco,
Guy Renny, The Fortegra Group LLC, Dealer Loyalty Protection, Inc.,
Auto Knight Motor Club, Inc., and Tiptree, Inc. filed motions to
dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint. On same day, the
Defendants filed a joint motion to stay case pending arbitration.

On Nov. 10, 2022, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to stay
proceedings pending arbitration and Defendant Mepco's motion to
dismiss. The Court also granted in part and denied in part The
Fortegra Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted Defendant Guy
Renny's motion to dismiss. The Order was entered by Judge Cormac J.
Carney.

The appellate case is captioned Dean Webb, et al. v. Pelican
Investment Holdings Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-56177, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
December 15, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC Mediation
Questionnaire was due December 22, 2022;

   -- Appellant Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC opening
brief is due on February 13, 2023;

   -- Appellees Edgar Garcia and Dean Webb answering brief is due
on March 13, 2023;

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DEAN WEBB, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Gene Joseph Stonebarger, Esq.
            STONEBARGER LAW APC
            101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
            Folsom, CA 95630
            Telephone: (916) 235-7140

                    - and -

            Michael E. Vinding, Esq.
            BRADY & VINDING
            455 Capitol Mall, Suite 220
            Sacramento, CA 95814
            Telephone: (916) 446-3400

Defendants-Appellants PELICAN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC are
represented by:

            Dwight Beckstrand, Esq.
            BECKSTRAND LAW OFFICES
            895 Aerovista Place, Suite 102
            San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
            Telephone: (805) 235-7150

PGA TOUR: Class Action Over Civil Conspiracy Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Gussoni, writing for Tennis World, reports that the lawsuit
pending in the US District Court of Northern California. What is
now a confrontation between the PGA Tour and LIV Golf, although the
lawsuit was originally filed by a (now small) group of Saudi League
players, is moving forward.

But the PGA Tour, pending this proceeding, a few months ago
suffered another summons.

The PGA Tour, situation
Larry Klayman is a lawyer, but he is also the president of Freedom
Watch, a US organization whose mission is to "protect and promote
freedom in the United States and in the rest of the world"

This, of course, causes Klayman to often be at the center of
controversy. Well, last July the Philadelphia lawyer filed a class
action against the PGA Tour in the 15th Judicial District of Palm
Beach County. But he also called out the DP World Tour, OWGR and
the Golf Channel

The PGA Tour and its partners (by the way, Jay Monahan and Keith
Pelley are also called to answer in person) are accused of
"monopolization, market splitting, refusal to deal and civil
conspiracy" In practice we are faced with an antitrust complaint,
and for the PGA Tour it is not good news, given that it has already
undergone an investigation of the same tenor in the past.

The thesis supported by the lawyer Klayman is that the collusive
behavior held by all the parties involved, aimed at inflicting
damage on the League led by Greg Norman, has indirectly damaged the
consumers. Who in this case are the fans of our sport (Klayman in
primis).

The damage would consist in the decrease in the quality of the
"product" offered by the PGA Tour following the bans inflicted on
players who have signed with LIV Golf. It is yesterday's news that
on this new front that has opened up, the PGA Tour has lost the
first round.

Through a post on his Twitter profile, Klayman made his first
victory public. The Palm Beach Court has in fact rejected the
motion to dismiss the class action filed by the lawyers of the PGA
Tour. In practice, this means that the case moves on to the next
step.

That is the phase in which the evidence requested by each party in
the dispute must be presented. And Larry Klayman has made specific
requests, especially for people called to testify. A few names, by
way of example: Jay Monahan, Rory McIlroy, Tiger Woods and Davis
Love III. 2023 is coming, but there are too many courtrooms and too
few golf courses on the horizon. It's not a nice prospect. [GN]

PROGYNY INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Progyny, Inc. PGNY resulting from allegations that
Progyny may have issued materially misleading business information
to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=10272 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On December 7, 2022, market analyst Jehoshaphat
Research published a report addressing Progyny, entitled "A Love
Child of Accounting Games & Credit Risk" (the "Jehoshaphat
Report"). The Jehoshaphat Report alleges that Progyny "is deceiving
the investor community via its financial reporting practices" and
that Progyny "is actually unprofitable but masks this problem with
accounting games." Among other items, the report alleges that
Progyny "apparently decided to recently stop accruing allowances
for customer cancellations, which . . . may have added up to
another ~400bps to both revenues and gross profit margins" and that
"credit losses" reported by Progyny "are more like reversals of
inflated revenues," citing the Company's "corporate customer base
of high quality." On this news, Progyny's stock price fell sharply
intraday trading on December 7, 2022.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

PURELY ELIZABETH: Reyes Sues Over Mislabeled Granola Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v PURELY ELIZABETH LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No.
30-2022-01297834-CU-MT-CXC (Cal. Sup., Dec. 19, 2022) alleges that
the Defendant manufactures and sells mislabeled granola and similar
food products, such as "Keto Granola Clusters Vanilla Almond
Butter", throughout the United States..

To increase profits at the expense of consumers and fair
competition, the Defendant deceptively sells the Products in
oversized packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that
they are almost half empty. The Defendant's slack-fill scam extends
to all flavors of its Products sold in opaque and partially opaque
containers. The Defendant dupes unsuspecting consumers across
America to pay premium prices for empty space. The Plaintiff would
not have purchased the Product, or would not have paid a premium
price for the Product, had she known that the size of the container
and product labeled were false and misleading, says the suit.

PURELY ELIZABETH LLC provides food products. The Company produces
nutrient-dense granola, oatmeal, muesli, and cereal products.
Purely Elizabeth serves customers in the State of Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, APC
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: 9949) 706-6469

QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Court Certifies Class of Stock Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH MALRIAT, et al., v.
QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION, et al.,Case No. 3:21-cv-00058-WHO (N.D.
Cal.),  the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order

   1. certifying a class of:

      "investors that purchased QuantumScape stock during the
      class period and who say they were injured based on the
      alleged misrepresentations and subsequent fall in stock
      prices;"

  2. appointing class representatives and class counsel.

After recognizing that I previously rejected these arguments, the
defendants say that Cain's calculation method fails to distinguish
between stock price changes caused by their alleged
misrepresentations and stock price changes caused by other market
factors.

This is essentially an argument that the plaintiffs "must
demonstrate that the defendant's deceptive conduct caused their
claimed economic loss." The Supreme Court has said that plaintiffs
do not need to prove loss causation at the class certification
stage, even where "intervening causes" beyond the alleged
misrepresentation "such as 'changed economic circumstances, changed
investor expectations, new industry-specific or firm-specific
facts, conditions, or other events' were responsible for the loss
or part of it."

Accordingly, the plaintiffs meet the predominance requirements of
Rule 23(b). The defendants do not contest whether a class action is
superior to other available methods of litigation.

The plaintiffs in this putative securities class action allege that
the Defendants QuantumScape, Jagdeep Singh, Timothy Holme, and
Kevin Hettrich misled investors about the progress and
effectiveness of their "solid-state batteries." Solid-state
batteries are an aspiring competitor to conventional lithium-ion
batteries for use in electric vehicles.

QuantumScape is an American company that develops solid state
lithium metal batteries for electric cars.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YHX5yz at no extra charge.[CC]


RAFEAL'S GOURMET: Conditional Certification Bid Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADALINE WINNINGHAM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., v. RAFEAL'S GOURMET DINER, LLC dba THE NILE, an Oregon Limited
Liability Company; ABDRABARRASOOL M. BUESSA, an individual; and
DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive, Winningham v. Rafeal's Gourmet
Diner, LLC et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00382-MK (D. Or.), the Hon.
Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai entered an order:

   1. granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
      certification;

   2. denying the implementation of the Plaintiffs' proposed
      notice and instead directing the parties to confer and
      finalize a notice and proposed order that is (1) in
      accordance with this opinion and (2) distributed by a
      mutually agreed-upon third-party claims administrator; and

   3. denying the request for oral arguments as unnecessary.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BTYEiY at no extra charge.[CC]

RAYMOND JAMES: Bid to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY NGUYEN, v.
RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00195-CEH-AAS
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell entered an
order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's Motion for a Status Conference and to
      Defer Briefing on the Defendant's Motion to Compel
      Arbitration is denied.

   2. The Defendant Raymond James & Associates, Inc.'s Motion to
      Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is granted.

   3. The Parties are compelled to arbitrate Plaintiff Kimberly
      Nguyen's claims against Raymond James & Associates, Inc.

   4. This case is stayed pending the arbitration of Plaintiff
      Kimberly Nguyen's claims against Raymond James &
      Associates, Inc.

   5. The parties shall file a notice informing the Court that
      the arbitration has been concluded, or that their dispute
      has otherwise been resolved, within ten days of either of
      such events.

   6. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and
      deadlines and administratively close this file.

As Defendant notes, Plaintiff does not dispute that the arbitration
clause in the Client Agreement is valid, enforceable, and binding.


The Court further concludes that Plaintiff's individual tort claims
fall within its scope and have not been resolved by the Order
denying class certification. Further, Defendant has not waived its
right to compel arbitration. Therefore, the parties are compelled
to arbitrate Plaintiff's individual claims against Defendant.

On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff Kimberly Nguyen filed a lawsuit
against RJA on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated
individuals. A client of RJA since 2015, she asserts claims of
breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. Nguyen alleges that in
2016, her RJA financial advisor recommended that she transfer her
assets into a fee-based investment account but failed to conduct an
analysis of the account's suitability for her investment strategy.


Moreover, Plaintiff contends that the Court's finding in the Order
denying class certification that it was unrefuted that Plaintiff's
RJA advisor conducted the required assessment of suitability
constitutes a conclusion that there is no genuine dispute of
material fact regarding a critical issue necessary to all four of
Plaintiff's individual claims.

RJA operates as a wealth management firm.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jrIrLx at no extra charge.[CC]


RIDERSSHARE INC: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murray v. Ridersshare,
Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-02329 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G.
Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding
deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise
the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report.

The deadlines should include a deadline for:

    (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff
        and defendant;

    (2) discovery -- class action;

    (3) motion for class certification;

    (4) response to motion for class certification; and

    (5) reply to motion for class certification.

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

Riders Share is a peer-to-peer marketplace startup that offers
street-legal motorcycle rentals.[CC]

SAFE STREETS: Anderson's Bid for Final OK of $1.49MM Deal Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mark Anderson, Plaintiff v. Safe Streets USA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00323-KJM-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denies Anderson's renewed unopposed motion
for final approval of the parties' settlement and for attorneys'
fees.

Safe Streets is in the business of selling and installing security
systems. Anderson worked as an installation technician for Safe
Streets between October 2014 and December 2016. He brought this
wage-and-hour lawsuit on behalf of installation technicians against
Safe Streets, alleging it did not compensate them for overtime pay,
double time, or wage equipment reimbursements, among other things.
His complaint was styled as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), putative class action under Rule 23,
and representative action under the California Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA).

In March 2018, Safe Streets moved to compel arbitration, asserting
Anderson had signed an arbitration agreement, in which he waived
his right to bring a collective or class action. It also requested
to stay Anderson's PAGA claim under the then-controlling precedent,
which held PAGA claims are not subject to arbitration.

Finding Safe Streets' arguments persuasive, the Court compelled
Anderson to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis and stayed
his PAGA claim until the arbitration's completion. The arbitrator
awarded Anderson $8,915 in damages for his individual claims, as
well as $78,243.60 in attorneys' fees and $17,189.36 in costs. As
confirmed at hearing on the pending motion in the case, Safe
Streets also paid $24,910 in arbitration fees and expenses.

After the arbitration, the parties represented to the Court that
the case now consists of a single cause of action under PAGA, and
they proposed a discovery schedule for only the PAGA claim. They
also represented the complaint's class allegations are no longer
relevant to the matter. Safe Streets' answer, filed after the
arbitration, corroborated these representations, as it stated his
case cannot be maintained as a collective or class action pursuant
to a prior order of the Court. Based on these representations and
the court's previous order, the Court understood Anderson's sole
remaining claim to be his PAGA claim.

Over a year after the arbitration, the parties settled in
mediation, and Anderson sought preliminary approval of their
agreement. The settlement provides a total settlement amount of
$1.49 million, of which $890,000 is allocated to Anderson's "class
claims," $491,700 to attorneys' fees, $25,000 to litigation costs,
$10,000 to Anderson's incentive award, up to $12,000 for the
settlement administrator fee, and at least $61,300 to Anderson's
PAGA claim. No amount is allocated toward a FLSA collective.

The total settlement amount reflects approximately 48 percent of
the total estimated value of Anderson's PAGA and class claims;
Anderson's expert valued Anderson's PAGA claim at $1,209,850 and
his class claims at $1,287,454, for a sum of $2,497,304. The class
period for the settlement ends in March of 2021, because, on this
date, the Defendant issued new policies that addressed the
practices at issue in this action.

The Court preliminarily approved the settlement with the
understanding it resolved only the PAGA claim. Anderson then sought
final approval, but he did not address whether his sole remaining
claim is under PAGA. The Court thus denied the final approval
because (1) the settlement improperly divided the available fund
between PAGA and class claims, although Anderson's only remaining
claim was under PAGA, and (2) the settlement did not distribute 75
percent of the civil penalties to the California Labor & Workforce
Development Agency (LWDA), as required under PAGA.

As noted, Anderson renews his unopposed motion for the settlement's
final approval and for attorneys' fees. The parties have not
changed any terms of the settlement. Instead, Anderson asks the
Court to reconsider its earlier denial because rather than
resolving just a single PAGA claim, the Settlement also resolves
all of the class claims brought on behalf of the absent class
members.

After reviewing Anderson's brief and the proposed settlement
agreement, the Court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss
at hearing: (1) why Anderson's collective claim is not moot under
Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (2013), and (2)
why Safe Streets is not judicially estopped from settling
Anderson's collective and class claims after arguing successfully
that Anderson had waived his right to assert such claims. Aderson
then filed a supplemental brief without leave of court, contrary to
the Court's standing orders. The supplemental brief acknowledged
for the first time that the proposed settlement agreement would
also resolve his FLSA collective claim.

The Court held the hearing on Nov. 4, 2022. Based on the parties'
arguments at the hearing and after reviewing the proposed
settlement agreement once more, Judge Mueller finds the proposed
agreement would in fact resolve Anderson's collective claim under
the FLSA, as well as his claims on behalf of a proposed class, and
his PAGA claim. Having considered the parties' arguments, she
denies the motion.

Anderson seeks approval of his agreement to settle collective,
class, and PAGA claims. Hybrid actions such as these "must --like
any stand-alone FLSA case or stand-alone class suit -- meet the
collective action requirements to proceed as an FLSA case and the
class action requirements to proceed as a class suit. Judge Mueller
thus considers Anderson's claims separately. The parties agree, as
does the Court, that the PAGA claim is not moot. That claim was not
arbitrated. Judge Muller needs therefore consider only whether the
collective and class claims are moot.

Judge Mueller finds that Anderson's counsel admitted the
arbitrator's award resolved his individual FLSA claim. His
collective claim is thus moot and the Court must dismiss his mooted
collective claim and deny his motion to approve the settlement of
that claim.

Anderson's collective and class claims are also moot. So Judge
Mueller dismisses those claims, and denies the motion for final
approval as presented. She finds that Anderson does argue his
individual claims are not moot because he has not obtained the
injunctive relief sought in his complaint. In other filings,
however, he has taken the opposite position. Moreover, to the
extent there remain any policies that continue to violate labor
laws, Anderson, as a former employee, does not have standing to
pursue an injunction against the company's policies.

Although she denies Anderson's motion for final approval, Judge
Mueller does not rule out the possible intervention by other
members of the putative collective or class. Anderson may also
pursue his remaining PAGA claim. But any renewed motion to approve
a settlement agreement -- either with a new plaintiff or for
Anderson's remaining PAGA claim -- must address the deficiencies
noted.

Reviewing the substance of the parties' agreement, Judge Muller
finds five shortcomings prevent her from approving the parties'
agreement to settle FLSA claims. First, Anderson neither specifies
what FLSA claims are subject to the release nor discusses the value
of these claims. Second, Anderson has not shown the Court has
authority to approve a settlement that releases FLSA claims without
first certifying a collective action. Rule 23 class actions are of
course fundamentally different from collective actions under the
FLSA. Third, Anderson has not shown the parties' collective
settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide
dispute over FLSA provisions.

Fourth, under the current settlement agreement, class members opt
into the collective action and release their FLSA claims when they
cash, deposit or endorse their settlement check. Finally, the
parties must provide potential plaintiffs accurate and timely
notice concerning the pendency of the collective action, so that
they can make informed decisions about whether or not to
participate.

Next, the parties' PAGA settlement provides $200,000 for the class
members and only $61,300 for the LWDA. Anderson cites other
district courts' approval decisions in similar cases. These
decisions, however, are not binding. Nor are they persuasive. These
courts did not justify their decision to depart from the Labor
Code's clear requirements.

Finally, Among Anderson's litigation costs, he may not recover
$12,478.75 in expert fees. Under the applicable federal law,
Anderson is entitled to compensation only for "court appointed
experts." Because Anderson's expert witness was not appointed by
the court, he may not recover the expert fees. Moreover, the
arbitrator found expert fees to be non-compensable. If Anderson is
now seeking to recover the expert fees rejected by the arbitrator,
as noted, he is unable to do so under the Federal Arbitration Act.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Mueller denies the Plaintiff's
renewed motion for final approval of settlement and for attorneys'
fees. Absent the filing of a renewed motion, the parties will file
a joint status report within 45 days of her Order's filed date. A
status conference is scheduled for Feb. 23, 2023.

The Order resolves ECF Nos. 56 and 57.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4r84j2cb from Leagle.com.


SAINT LOUIS, MO: Parties Must File Dismissal Papers in Alston
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAREED ALSTON, v. CITY OF
SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-01569-AGF (E.D.
Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order that:

    -- No later than 7 days following final approval of class
       certification in Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case No.
       4:19-cv02590-CDP, the parties shall file dismissal papers
       with respect to the instant case. All activity and
       pending deadlines in the instant case are stayed until
       that time, and the case shall be administratively closed.

    -- All pending motions are dismissed without prejudice, as
       moot, and the trial setting of February 13, 2023 is
       vacated. Upon notice of counsel that the parties have
       reached a settlement in connection with this case and the
       class action Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case No. 4:19-
       cv02590-CDP.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YOHgWI at no extra charge.[CC]

SAINT LOUIS, MO: Parties Must File Dismissal Papers in Lindsey
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDSEY LAIRD and ANDRE
ROBERTS, v. CITY OF SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., Case No.
4:18-cv-01567-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig
entered an order that:

    -- No later than 7 days following final approval of class
       certification in Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case No.
       4:19-cv02590-CDP, the parties shall file dismissal papers
       with respect to the instant case. All activity and
       pending deadlines in the instant case are stayed until
       that time, and the case shall be administratively closed.

    -- All pending motions are dismissed without prejudice, as
       moot, and the trial setting of February 13, 2023 is
       vacated. Upon notice of counsel that the parties have
       reached a settlement in connection with this case and the
       class action Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case No. 4:19-
       cv02590-CDP.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PPJjG4 at no extra charge.[CC]

SECRETLAB US: Nugent Sues Over Mislabeled Gaming Chair Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN NUGENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SECRETLAB US, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-08944-SK (N.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2022)
seeks to prevent Defendant from continuing to falsely advertise on
its website a purported discount on its Secretlab Gaming Chairs
(the "Chairs" or "Products").

According to the complaint, the Defendant represented that the
discount is based on the Chairs' purported original price, with a
corresponding purported savings advertised to consumers.
Unbeknownst to consumers, these price discounts are false because
the Chairs were never sold at the purported original price, or if
they were ever sold at the purported original price, the Chairs
were offered for the original price for an inconsequential period
of time and then continuously discounted, rendering the purported
original price to be false and misleading, says the suit.

SECRETLAB US, INC. markets, sells, and distributes gaming chairs
and gaming desk. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Abiri, Esq.
          CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP
          445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 593-9095
          Facsimile: (213) 785-2899
          Email: abiri@cd-lawyers.com

SERVICE KING: Supplemental Filing Date Extended to Feb. 17, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA MONIZ, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SERVICE KING, INC., a California corporation; SERVICE KING PAINT &
BODY, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, and DOES 2 through
100, Case No. 5:18-cv-07372-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward
J. Davila entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation to
continue the supplemental filing deadline in connection with the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification from December 21, 2022
to February 17, 2023.

Service King specializes in auto body repair.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C0kFNb at no extra charge.[CC]

SIMPLY MEDICAL: Case Management Plan Entered in Carrico Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carrico v. Simply Medical,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08190-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Collen
McMahon entered an order regarding case management plan:

   1. Discovery pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.        Jan. 12, 2023
      P.26(a) shall be exchanged by:

   2. No additional partied may be             Feb. 16, 2023
      joined after:

   3. No pleading may be amended after:        Feb. 16, 2023

   4. All discovery, including expert          July 6, 2023
      discovery, must be completed on
      or before:

   5. A joint pretrial order in the form       May 5, 2023
      prescribed in Judge McMahon's
      Individual Rules, together with
      all other pretrial submissions
     required by those rules:

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3V8QLgo at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq.
          NEMATZADEH PLLC
          101 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 909
          Telephone: (646) 799-6729
          E-mail: jsn@nematlayers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jamie Haar, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS
          Suite 1700, 599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 492-2070
          E-mail: jamie.haar@ogletree.com

SKIPPER 1339: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Brooks Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANNA BROOKS, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SKIPPER 1339, LLC d/b/a JEN'S
DEN GENTLEMEN'S CLUB and CYRUS B KURTZ, III, Defendants, Case No.
5:22-cv-02203 (N.D. Ohio, December 7, 2022) is a collective and
class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their
alleged unlawful pay practices in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an exotic dancer at
the Defendants' Jen's Den Gentlemen's Club in Akron, Ohio during
the period 2016 through about January 2022.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated exotic dancers worked an average total of about 20 to 40
hours per week. However, the Defendants did not pay them any wages
and/or any other form of compensation for hours that they worked or
performed as exotic dancers. The Defendants allegedly improperly
classified them as non-employee contractors. Instead of paying them
wages, the Defendants required them to pay a mandatory “house
fee” kickback payment in the amount of approximately $20.00 to
$40.00 per shift. In addition, the Defendants deducted and/or
assigned portion of the tips they received from the Defendants'
customers, including a mandatory $10.00 “tip out” payment to
the Defendants' security or bouncer.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated exotic
dancers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid wages found to
be due and owing to them, an award in the amount of all kickbacks,
tips, and gratuities unlawfully taken and/or assigned by the
Defendants, statutory liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.

Skipper 1339, LLC d/b/a Jen's Den Gentlemen's Club operates a strip
club. Cyrus B Kurtz, III is the owner of the Corporate Defendant.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Perlmuter, Esq.
          TITTLE & PERLMUTER
          4106 Bridge Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 444113
          Tel: (216) 308-1522
          E-mail: Scott@TittleLawFirm.Com

                - and -

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Tel: (301) 587-9373
          E-mail: GGreenberg@zagfirm.com

ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Stays Newbold Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DILLAN NEWBOLD, v. CITY OF
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-01572-HEA (E.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Henry Edward Autrey entered an order that:

  -- The trial set on June 12, 2023, is vacated and all pending
     motions are denied without prejudice.

  -- The case is stayed until final approval of class
     certification in Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case No. 4:19-
     cv-02590-CDP.

  -- Counsel shall file within seven days of the date of Order
     on class certification in Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case
     4:19-cv-02590-CDP a stipulation for dismissal, a motion for
     leave to voluntarily dismiss, or a proposed consent
     judgment.

  -- Failure to timely comply with this order shall result in
     the dismissal of this action with prejudice.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hOV8zL at no extra charge.[CC]


STELLAR MUTUAL: Vallesillo Allowed Leave to Seek Limited Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEJANDRO VALLESILLO,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v.
STELLAR MUTUAL INC., a Delaware Corporation; STELLAR MUTUAL GLOBAL
INC, a Delaware corporation; DANIEL SHARBANI, an individual; and
JOHN DOE, an unknown business entity, Case No.
8:22-cv-00307-RFR-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to seek
limited discovery prior to Rule 26(f) Conference.

The Plaintiff may conduct discovery as to the issues of class
certification and damages. Plaintiff shall file a proposed
scheduling order for the time necessary to complete such discovery
by January 10, 2022.

The Plaintiff filed a Complaint on August 24, 2022, and an Amended
Complaint on October 12, 2022, seeking to "stop the defendants'
illegal practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to the
telephones of consumers whose phone numbers were registered on the
Federal Do Not Call Registry" in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

The Plaintiff alleges from April through June 2022, he received
approximately a dozen unsolicited phones call from defendants John
Doe and/or Stellar Mutual soliciting Stellar Mutual's loan
products.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent himself and a class of similarly
situated individuals defined as those who "(1) from the last 4
years to present (2) Defendants called more than once in a 12-month
period (3) whose telephone numbers were registered on the Federal
Do Not Call registry for more than 30 days at the time of the
call."

On December 12, 2022, the Plaintiff obtained Clerk's Entry of
Default against all the defendants because they failed to file a
responsive pleading after service of the amended complaint.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I0cjcq at no extra charge.[CC]



SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on Dec. 18
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of
investors of Sunlight Financial Holdings Inc. f/k/a Spartan
Acquisition Corp. II ("Sunlight" or the "Company") SUNL. The class
action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Sunlight
securities between January 25, 2021 and September 28, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period") Investors are hereby notified that
they have until February 14, 2023, to move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff in this action.

What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and
are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone
at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.

To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
into a browser:

https://www.cognitoforms.com/JohnsonFistel/SunlightFinancialHoldingsInc

There is no cost or obligation to you.

On September 28, 2022, Sunlight issued a press release
"announc[ing] that an installer liquidity event and volatile
interest rates will impact its full-year 2022 financial
performance" and that "[a]s a result, the Company is withdrawing
its previously-provided full-year 2022 outlook metrics." Sunlight
stated that "[o]ne of Sunlight's largest solar installers has
notified the Company that due to cash flow challenges, the
installer is in the process of winding down its operations, likely
restricting its ability to fully meet its financial obligations. As
a result, Sunlight expects to impair $30 to $33 million in advances
to that installer on the Company's balance sheet as of September
30, 2022."

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the Company lacked effective
underwriting and risk evaluation with respect to its contractor
advance program; (2) that Sunlight lacked the oversight and
periodic monitoring systems necessary to timely detect bad debt
associated with its contractor advance program; (3) that the
Company lacked effective internal controls over accounting and
reporting of non-cash advance receivables; (4) that, as a result,
the Company would be forced to take a non-cash advance receivables
impairment charge exceeding $30 million; and (5) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Sunlight class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Sunlight class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.

About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
Investor Relations
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]

SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Faces Fung Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHIE FUNG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL HOLDINGS INC. f/k/a SPARTAN
ACQUISITION CORP. II, GEOFFREY STRONG, MATTHEW POTERE, JAMES
CROSSEN, BARRY EDINBURG, and RODNEY YODER, Case No. 1:22-cv-10658
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2022) is a class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Sunlight
securities between January 25, 2021 and September 28, 2022,
inclusive (the Class Period), pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange  Act of 1934.

During the Class Period, the Defendants materially misled the
investing public by inflating the price of Sunlight's securities,
by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements and/or
omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make the
Defendants' statements, not false and/or misleading. The statements
and omissions were materially false and/or misleading because they
failed to disclose material adverse information and/or
misrepresented the truth about Sunlight's business, operations, and
prospects as alleged herein.

The Plaintiff contend that the Defendants carried out a plan,
scheme and course of conduct which was intended to:

  -- deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and other
     Class members; and

  -- cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase
     Sunlight's securities at artificially inflated prices.

On September 28, 2022, after the market closed, Sunlight disclosed
that it would record a "non-cash advance receivables impairment
charge of $30 million to $33 million during the Company's fiscal
quarter ending September 30, 2022."

The Company explained that "the Company was informed of certain
actions taken by one of its installer partners to address liquidity
issues faced by the installer" which "would likely result in an
inability of the Company to collect on advances outstanding to such
installer."

The same day, the Company also issued a press release withdrawing
its full-year 2022 outlook due to the "installer liquidity event."
Defendant Matthew Potere was quoted stating, "While our risk
exposure with other contractor advances is much smaller (the next
three largest partner advances being $10 million, $7 million, and
$5 million respectively), we are re-underwriting all contractor
partners' advances to further mitigate risk going forward."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.44 per share, or
57.1%, to close at $1.08 per share on September 29, 2022, thereby
injuring investors.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that:

  -- the Company lacked effective underwriting and risk
     evaluation with respect to its contractor advance program;
     and

  -- Sunlight lacked the oversight and periodic monitoring
     systems necessary to timely detect bad debt associated with
     its contractor advance program.

Sunlight claims to be a business-to-business-to-consumer POS
financing platform that provides residential solar and home
improvement contractors the ability to offer seamless POS financing
to their customers when purchasing residential solar systems or
other home improvements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  clinehan@glancylaw.com
                  prajesh@glancylaw.com

                - and -

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          THE PORTNOY LAW FIRM
          1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 692-8883
          E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com

SUPER BREAD: Fuentes, et al., Seek FLSA Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIONICIA FUENTES, LEONARDO
RODRIGUEZ, EZEQUIEL CHIOZZA, CANDIDO PERALTA RODRIGUEZ, ANGEL
PEREZ, FERNANDO FACAL, DREILYN SANTOS, KELVIN TAVERAS, and
CHRISTOPHER VARGAS GARCIAS, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals, v. SUPER BREAD II CORP. and SUPER
CAKES CORP., d/b/a SUPER BREAD AND SUPER CAKES BAKERY, ROXO3, LLC,
d/b/a ROXO3, JOSE MARTINS, and CATARINA MARTINS, Case No.
2:18-cv-06736-EP-CLW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 23 and the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA):

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
      FLSA Certification; and

   2. granting such other relief to Plaintiffs and putative
      Class and Collective Members as this Court deems just and
      proper.

A copy of the PlaintiffS' motion to certify class dated Dec. 20,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at  https://bit.ly/3PXpOeL
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Rozger, Esq.
          MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP
          80 Pine St., 33 rd Fl.
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 509-1616
          Facsimile: (212) 509-8088
          E-mail: jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Salvador Simao, Esq.
          Nicole Espin, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
          233 Mt. Airy Road, 1st Floor
          Basking Ridge, NJ 07920


TATA CONSULTANCY: Katz Alleges Employment Discriminatory Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN KATZ, individually and in his representative capacity,
Plaintiff v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD. Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-07069 (D.N.J., Dec. 7, 2022) is a class action brought by
the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated individuals, to remedy pervasive, ongoing race and
national origin discrimination by Defendant in violation of the
Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.

The complaint alleges Defendant's intentional pattern or practice
of employment discrimination against Plaintiff and other
individuals who are not of South Asian race or Indian national
origin and Defendant's utilization of employment practices that
have a disparate impact on these same groups. TCS's discrimination
is systemic and ongoing, and impacts non-South Asians and
non-Indians across the company, as well as applicants, who are
disfavored in TCS' hiring, staffing, promotion, and
termination/retention decisions, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks, on his own behalf, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, declaratory, injunctive, and other
equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, including pre-
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs to redress
TCS' discriminatory practices.

Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd. is an IT consulting company that is
headquartered in Mumbai, India with its U.S. headquarters in
Edison, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Rudnick, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RUDNICK LLC
          788 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 204
          Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
          Telephone: (732) 842-2070
          Facsimile: (732) 879-0213
          E-mail: jonr@ronrudlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Kotchen, Esq.
          KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
          1918 New Hampshire Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 471-1995
          E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com

TAYLOR COUNTY: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Jones Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES G. JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TAYLOR COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT HEALTH FACILITES
CORPORATION, d/b/a TAYLOR REGIONAL HOSPITAL, Case No.
1:22-cv-00169-GNS (W.D. Ky., Dec. 16, 2022) is a class action for
damages against Taylor Regional for its failure to exercise
reasonable care in securing and safeguarding sensitive patient PII
and/or Private Health Information (PHI) including first and last
names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health insurance
information, personal addresses, and sensitive patient medical
treatment information.

In January of 2022, the Defendant discovered unauthorized activity
on its computer systems. The Defendant discovered that an
unauthorized actor had access to patient PHI, on November 2, 2021,
to January 19, 2022.

In April of 2022, Mr. Jones received a letter from Taylor Regional.
The Defendant offered no explanation for the delay between the
initial discovery of the Breach and the belated notification to
affected patients – delay that resulted in Mr. Jones and Class
members suffering harm they otherwise could have avoided had a
timely disclosure been made, the suit contends.

The Defendant offered no help to Plaintiff or Class members in the
form of credit monitoring services, instead simply encouraging to
take on the task of monitoring their credit themselves, the suit
adds.

TAYLOR COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT HEALTH FACILITES CORPORATION is a
medical services provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Whitfield, Esq.
          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          19 North Main Street
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Telephone: (270) 821-0656
          Facsimile: (270) 825-1163
          E-mail: jwhitfield@milberg.com
                  dlietz@milberg.com

                - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
          412 H Street, NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-5200
          Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

TESLA INC: Asks Judge to Send Class Action Suit to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Ewing, writing for The New York Times, reports that until last
month, a class-action lawsuit by Tesla owners looked as if it would
reveal new details about the carmaker's self-driving technology,
which has been blamed for serious accidents and deaths.

But then Tesla deployed a legal strategy that has allowed it to
avoid the kind of attention-grabbing lawsuits other carmakers
regularly contend with. The company asked a judge to send the case
to an arbitrator, who would hear it in private.

Tesla's gambit is likely to succeed because of a provision in the
contracts that the company's customers agree to when they buy
electric cars from the company.

Disputes between buyers and Tesla "will not be decided by a judge
or jury but instead by a single arbitrator," the agreement says. In
other words, buyers with grievances must give up their
constitutional right to a trial in front of a judge and jury.
Instead, their cases must be heard by an arbitrator paid for by
Tesla.

The contract language is an example of a long-running trend that
legal scholars say has denied thousands or millions of people their
day in court. Arbitration clauses buried in the fine print are
widely used by businesses like banks, cable companies and nursing
homes.

But forced arbitration had been rare in the auto industry.

Tesla is able to use arbitration more widely than its rivals
because it sells cars directly to buyers. Established carmakers
like General Motors, Ford Motor and Toyota sell through dealers and
are less likely to have a direct contractual relationship with
buyers.

Conceived as a way to avoid costly litigation and relieve
overburdened courts, arbitration has evolved into a system that
favors corporations and leaves consumers little recourse, consumer
groups and legal scholars say. Cynthia Estlund, a professor of law
at New York University, calls arbitration a "black hole" because it
helps companies make complaints effectively disappear. That's
because arbitrators, often retired judges, typically hear cases in
private, unlike courts open to the public.

And arbitration clauses usually prohibit people with grievances
from banding together in class-action suits to share the costs of
lawyers, expert witnesses and so on.

A Tesla owner whose bumper falls off or trunk latch malfunctions
must file a complaint as an individual, even if hundreds of other
people have the identical problem. In most cases, the cost of
pursuing claims in arbitration exceeds the potential payoff,
discouraging filings.

"It's considered a get-out-of-jail-free card" for corporations,
said Shannon Liss-Riordan, a Boston labor lawyer whose clients
include Tesla employees who say that the company laid them off this
year without giving them adequate notice. In October, a federal
judge in Texas dismissed a class-action suit by the workers,
accepting Tesla's argument that the employees had signed binding
arbitration agreements. (Other automakers such as Toyota also make
at least some of their employees sign contracts with binding
arbitration clauses.)

In the class-action suit about Tesla's self-driving system, filed
in federal court in California, customers are asserting that the
company cheated them by exaggerating the capabilities of its
technology.

One of the plaintiffs in the suit, Thomas LoSavio, a resident of
Hillsborough, Calif., said he paid $8,000 above the list price for
optional self-driving software when he bought a new Tesla Model S
in 2017, according to court documents. But he and other owners say
the technology never delivered the level of autonomous driving
promised by Elon Musk, the Tesla chief executive. On the contrary,
it has been implicated in fatal crashes, the lawsuit claims.

Tesla argues that buyers knew that performance of the self-driving
software depended on future advances in technology. "Since 2016,
Tesla has made good on its promise by continuously improving the
software and deploying it to customers via over-the-air software
updates," the company said in court documents in November.

Then Tesla filed a motion to force most of the owners to pursue
their claims individually through arbitration.

The judge in the case, Haywood S. Gilliam Jr., has not yet ruled on
the motion. But the Supreme Court has given corporations a broad
mandate to enforce arbitration agreements.

Arbitration prevents the public from learning which vehicles have
quality problems, said Gretchen Freeman Cappio, a partner at Keller
Rohrback, a firm that has been involved in many lawsuits against
automakers. "It makes you wonder what vehicle manufacturers are
afraid of becoming public," she said.

This year, inspired by the #MeToo movement, Congress banned forced
arbitration for employees claiming sexual harassment or sexual
assault. But for consumers and workers with other complaints, it
remains ubiquitous.

Tesla buyers can opt out of arbitration, and preserve their right
to a trial, by sending a letter to the company within a month of
buying a car. But few are aware of or exercise that option,
plaintiff's lawyers said.

Tesla and its lawyers did not respond to requests for comment.

The American Arbitration Association, a nonprofit group that
provides arbitration services to Tesla and other corporations, said
in a statement that it "has implemented various procedures aimed at
providing a fair and equitable forum for the resolution of consumer
disputes," including a $200 limit on filing fees. The organization
says it resolves consumer cases more than three times as fast as
federal district courts.

In recent years, some lawyers who represent consumers or employees
have found a way to get around arbitration clauses. Lawyers recruit
hundreds or thousands of clients with identical complaints and help
them file individual claims in return for a cut of any judgment.

The practice is similar to a class action, but more costly in part
because of filing fees and the logistics of managing so many
claims. For that reason, such mass arbitrations make financial
sense only when customers can expect to collect at least $1,000 or
so apiece in compensation.

"Mass arbitration is not a magic bullet," said Warren Postman,
managing partner of Keller Postman, which used the approach to
pursue claims by DoorDash couriers that they had been underpaid.

Consumers with smaller claims still fall through the cracks. And
mass arbitrations remain largely confidential.

Ms. Liss-Riordan, the Boston labor lawyer, said she planned to use
the strategy on behalf of the laid-off Tesla workers.

Arbitration does not protect Tesla from lawsuits by people who are
not employees or customers. Tesla has been sued by shareholders and
by victims of accidents involving Teslas owned by other people.

Still, Tesla's relative immunity from consumer and employee
litigation gives it a financial advantage over more established
automakers. Since the end of 2017, the American Arbitration
Association has handled 21 consumer complaints against Tesla,
awarding a total of $280,000, according to the group's data.

The association does not disclose what Tesla owners complained
about, but they typically sought damages in the tens of thousands
of dollars.

By comparison, Ford Motor agreed in 2019 to pay $17 million to
owners who complained about defects in their cars' entertainment
systems. And Volkswagen agreed to pay $15 billion to owners of
diesel vehicles with illegal emissions systems.

Ford and Volkswagen have sold many millions of cars over the years,
while Tesla sold fewer than one million last year. Even taking into
account the difference in the number of cars produced by Tesla and
its competitors, legal experts said the company's use of binding
arbitration appeared to have saved it a lot of money.

Recently other automakers have also been trying to deploy the same
legal force field.

Ford and others have begun inserting arbitration agreements into
contracts for car loans from their credit divisions. In at least
one case, in which owners of Ford F-150 pickup trucks claimed that
defective V-8 engines consumed a lot of engine oil, a federal judge
ruled that those agreements could be used to force buyers into
arbitration.

Ford maintains that arbitration is a better way to resolve
disputes. Resolution of claims "should be fair, fast, efficient and
proportional to the dispute," Ian Thibodeau, a Ford spokesman, said
in an email. "Arbitration often achieves those goals faster and
more effectively than the court system."

In another recent case, though, a federal judge in Illinois denied
a motion by Subaru to compel arbitration for an owner who had
signed an arbitration agreement with a dealer. The owner claimed
her privacy was violated by Subaru technology designed to tell
whether drivers are being attentive. The judge ruled that an
agreement between the dealer and the buyer did not apply to
disputes with the manufacturer.

Because of its direct sales model, Tesla stands apart from much of
the industry, lawyers said.

"Tesla appears to be unique among car companies in their use of
arbitration clauses to avoid responsibility in courts of law," said
Donald Slavik, who represents Derrick Monet, whose wife, Jenna
Monet, was killed when their Tesla hit a parked fire truck on I-70
in Indiana.

A lawsuit by Mr. Monet, who was seriously injured, attributed the
crash to Tesla's Autopilot system, which can steer, brake and
accelerate a car on its own. Tesla, which is contesting the
lawsuit, has not yet tried to force the case into arbitration. The
company has maintained that Autopilot improves the safety of its
cars.

Kristin Hull, chief executive of Nia Impact Capital, an investment
firm, has pushed Tesla to eliminate forced arbitration for
employees, arguing that it conceals problems investors should know
about. In August, almost 40 percent of shareholders supported a
resolution proposed by Nia that would have instructed Tesla to
study whether forced arbitration affects employees' ability to seek
redress for discrimination or other complaints.

"As investors we don't have any insight into company culture and
what is happening," Dr. Hull said. "Managers aren't held
accountable." [GN]

TIREMAN AUTO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Yarger Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN YARGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIREMAN AUTO SERVICE CENTERS, LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-02291 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 20, 2022) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Plaintiff Yarger was employed by the Defendant as technician.

TIREMAN AUTO SERVICE CENTERS, LTD. operates automobile service
centers throughout Ohio and Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
          Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
          Toledo, OH 43606
          Telephone: (419) 824-4439
          Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
          Email: Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

TOWER HILL: Wins Summary Judgment v. MSP Recovery Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, and MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES 44 LLC, v. TOWER HILL
PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00262-AW-HTC
(N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Allen Winsor entered an order:

  -- granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment to the
     following extent: All claims against Tower Hill Select are
     dismissed on the merits, and all claims against Tower Hill
     Prime are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and

  -- denying as moot MSP Recovery's motion for class
     certification, Tower Hill's motions to strike, and MSP
     Recovery's motion for summary judgment.

The clerk will enter a judgment that says, "Plaintiffs MSP Recovery
Claims Series LLC's and MSP Recovery Claims Series 44 LLC's claims
against Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Company, Tower Hill
Signature Insurance Company, and Omega Insurance Company were
earlier resolved on a motion to dismiss." The court ordered those
claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Count II was also resolved on a motion to dismiss, and the court
later ordered that claim be dismissed with prejudice. The remaining
claims were resolved at the summary-judgment stage. It is ordered
that Plaintiffs' claims against Tower Hill Select Insurance Company
are dismissed on the merits. "

The Court further ordered that the Plaintiffs' claims against Tower
Hill Prime Insurance Company are dismissed without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction." The clerk will then close the
file.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GgqWH9 at no extra charge.[CC]

ULTA BEAUTY: Bylaws Contrary to Delaware Law, Lovoi Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD LOVOI v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC., a Delaware Corporation, LORNA E.
NAGLER, DAVID C. KIMBELL, MICHELLE L. COLLINS, KELLY E. GARCIA,
CATHERINE A. HALLIGAN, PATRICIA A. LITTLE, MICHAEL R. MACDONALD,
GEORGE R. MRKONIC, GISEL RUIZ, and MICHAEL C. SMITH, Case No.
2022-1162 (Del. Ch., Dec. 16, 2022), is a class action on behalf of
himself and all other stockholders of Ulta Beauty against Ulta
Beauty and the members of its Board, seeking a declaratory judgment
that the Removal Provision violates Section 141(k) of the Delaware
General Corporation Law and the Delaware common law and is thus
invalid.

Accordingly, Ulta Beauty's Bylaws are contrary to Delaware law and
thus invalid for requiring "the affirmative vote of the holders of
66 2/3% of voting power of the shares of stock of the Corporation"
to remove a director with cause. Under Delaware law, stockholders
of a corporation organized and existing under Delaware law, have
the authority to remove directors by a simple majority vote.

The Removal Provision adopted and presently maintained by The
Defendants requires a higher threshold of shareholder votes than a
majority to remove directors, the lawsuit contends.

Plaintiff Gerald Lovoi is and has been at all relevant times an
owner of Ulta Beauty common stock.

Ulta Beauty operates more than 1,000 retail stores across fifty
states selling beauty products such as cosmetics and fragrances,
and related accessories and services, and its stores also feature
full-service salons.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          Andrew R. Ralli, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Nemours Building
          1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
                  aralli@coochtaylor.com

UMITJON KAMOLOV: Bid for Conditional Status Granted in Kargar Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABINA KARGAR, SERGIO
PEREZ DIAZ, and SHAINA FOSTER, in their individual capacities and
on behalf of others similarly situated, v. UMITJON KAMOLOV et al.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00664-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M.
Furman entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification.

In particular, between the First and Second Amended Complaints and
two declarations, the Plaintiffs have carried their "low" burden at
this stage of making a "modest factual showing" that they and
"potential opt-in plaintiffs together were victims of a common
policy or plan that violated the law." Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624
F.3d 537, 555 (2d Cir. 2010). To the extent Defendants argue
otherwise, they ignore the First Amended Complaint.

the Plaintiffs in this case, familiarity with which is presumed,
bring claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL").

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

UNILEVER PLC: Product Safety Class Action Pending in Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels, writing for ModernRetail, reports that it's not
uncommon for CPG brands to run into product safety issues. The U.S.
saw an average of five to six recalls issued each week this
calendar year, according to Consumer Product Safety Commission
data. But it is rare to see a company recall nearly all of its
products from the shelves -- and that's what The Laundress had to
do after a potential bacteria exposure risk in its detergent and
cleaning supplies.

The Laundress, founded in 2004 and bought by Unilever in 2019, on
Nov. 17 urged its customers to stop using all its products due to a
yet-unnamed bacteria risk. Since then, the company issued a
voluntary recall with CPSC as well as Canadian regulators. It's
specified what kinds of bacteria the products potentially contain,
the potential health risks, and how customers can re-treat their
clothes and products.

The company is also facing a proposed class action lawsuit in
federal court, and an outpouring of criticism from concerned
customers online.

The recall brings to light the difficulties that brands can face
when something goes wrong in its manufacturing process. And while
experts say The Laundress is likely doing what it can to ensure the
issue doesn't happen again, the brand has yet to identify exactly
how and where what led to such a wide-scale recall. Meanwhile
customers continue to hammer the company for information on its
social media accounts.

Attorney Henry Noye, a partner with Obermayer who focuses on
commercial litigation and product liability, said the first
priority for companies facing product safety issues is to be
transparent. And that seems to be what The Laundress has done, Noye
said, citing its initial social media posts, emails to consumers
and its work with regulators on the voluntary recall.

"Nobody starts a business to lose money," said Noye, who is not
involved with the case or the affected brands. "If there's some
breakdown in their process that's going to affect their bottom
line, no business is motivated to ignore that, or not be
responsive."

The brand response
The Laundress developed a reputation as a high-end, plant-based
detergent brand that could be used as an alternative to dry
cleaning. A gallon of its signature detergent sells for $94, while
a 33 ounce bottle goes for $24. Compare that to about $31 for a
1.2-gallon of Tide sold at Walmart.

Marketed as having "sophisticated fragrances" and powerful stain
removal properties without the mystery chemicals of dry cleaning,
the brand catered to a wealthy demographic. In addition to its own
website, The Laundress' products could be purchased at high-end
retailers like Bloomingdale's, Saks Fifth Avenue and Jenni Kayne.

It also wooed customers with luxury collaborations; one popular
line was scented with Le Labo's Rose 31and Santal 33 scents. In the
fall of 2021, the brand launched a collaboration with John Mayer
called "Way out West" with a rich and woodsy signature scent.

But even high-end brands can run into unexpected issues.

An initial notice on Nov. 17 posted across social media and issued
to retailers who sell the product urged customers to immediately
stop using its products due to a bacteria risk. The Laundress
issued FAQs providing more detail, and then it set up a separate
website for customers to place requests for a refund.

In the days to come, the brand provided a complete list of
potentially affected products spanning over 150 individual items
plus about 100 gift sets and kits. By Dec. 1, it had issued an
official voluntary recall and the full number of products affected:
eight million units, produced between January 2021 and September
2022.

Noye from Obermayer said the public response and voluntary
indicates that the brand was looking out for its customers, and its
business.

Still, there's a tension between what a brand can say and what
customers might want to hear. An investigation may still be
ongoing, preventing any new updates from being disclosed, even as
customers take to social media to raise concerns.

"There wasn't TikTok 20 years ago," Noye said. "This makes the
response more difficult."

But companies can get into trouble if it is found out that they hid
information from customers, Noye said. "When you get to the point
where you're in the need to recall, this is not the time to worry
about egos or reputation. You need to be forward thinking," he
said. "It's in their best interest to remain accountable, to remain
forthright and to remain transparent, because they're trying to
recover the brand."

It can also be helpful to bring in third-party investigators or
firms to help address what went on, Noye said.

"When you have a real verified defect that is that is out the in
the public, you want to show that it's not you alone (responding),"
he said. "What you want to show from a company perspective is,
'Listen, we understand we need help, and that's why we brought in
ABC Company, and they have tremendous credentials in this area.'"

The potential for exposure
Still, the brand has yet to directly address exactly how and where
the bacteria risk occurred. A request for comment from Modern
Retail was unreturned. But the company issued a media statement on
Dec. 1 confirming the recall applied to "products manufactured by a
third-party contract manufacturer in the United States due to a
risk of exposure to bacteria."

Those bacteria could include the naturally-occurring environmental
organisms of Burkholderia cepacia complex, Klebsiella aerogenes and
varieties of Pseudomonas, the brand said.

While healthy people are usually not affected by the bacteria, the
recall states that "People with weakened immune systems, external
medical devices, and underlying lung conditions who are exposed to
the bacteria face a risk of serious infection that may require
medical treatment." Symptoms could include "mild skin symptoms to
more serious signs of infection."

Dr.Nancy Falk, a cleaning products formulation scientist and
consultant who previously worked at Unilever and Clorox, is not
familiar with the specifics of The Laundress' supply chain or
situation. But in general, she said, cleaning manufacturers have
several main strategies in place to prevent bacteria exposure in
the formulation process.

The first strategy comes down to the design of the formula. That
can include a low water content, as bacteria need water to live.
Adjusting the pH so it's too acidic for bacteria growth is another
option, she said, or adding preservatives.

Another strategy is ensuring that batches of raw materials put into
the product are safe, and can be processed before getting spoiled.
Brands will work with suppliers to ensure there are quality control
requirements to keep raw materials from getting contaminated, Falk
said.

"If you're cooking, you wouldn't bring a spoiled ingredient into
your dish," she said. "You wouldn't bring in an ingredient,
including the water in the formula, with a high bacterial count."

It's also critical to make sure that machines at detergent
manufacturing facilities aren't contaminated, Falk said. That can
be done with regular, effective clean-outs of pumps, piping and
equipment.

"If you had some bacteria growing in a particular place, you could
get a pretty high dosage of bacteria coming off the pipes into the
product, and it could overwhelm the product's ability to preserve
itself," Falk said, "and therefore you could wind up, potentially,
with soiled product."

Falk said each of those areas -- the product formula, the raw
materials and the manufacturing facility -- is likely being
investigated to determine where the exposure occurred, and how to
prevent it from happening again.

"Companies really want to do right by the consumer," she said. "The
brands, and the manufacturers really try to do a very good job of
preventing these things from happening."

The customer response
Since the safety notice came out, customers have flooded The
Laundress' social media with comments and concerns. Some spell out
health situations they've experienced. Others complain about the
length or process of how to get a refund. Many express
disappointment in the brand.

"Sickening to think we wrapped ourselves in blankets and slept on
pillows in beds with sheets that were washed in Laundress
detergents on this recall list," one customer commented.

On Thanksgiving, a proposed class action against Unilever was filed
in federal court. It alleges violations of consumer protection
statutes, and also claims that plaintiff Margaret Murphy and her
household had respiratory problems and skin infections after using
the products.

Ryan Gustafson, plaintiff attorney with law firm Good Gustafson
Aumais, told Modern Retail the legal team plans to vigorously try
the case to assist customers who believe they have been harmed.

"It is unbelievable that a company charging a significant premium
for its products, while touting those products as 'non-toxic' and
'better for you' could fail consumers in such a manner," Gustafson
said.

Court records show Unilever has retained defense counsel from
Winston & Strawn. The company was granted an extension to Jan. 19
to issue a response to the complaint.

Affected products on The Laundress website are listed as out of
stock. But it is still selling a handful of physical goods
unaffected by the recall, like a sweater comb and laundry storage
bags. And a header with a link to the recall site remains fixed on
the page.

"We are undertaking decisive steps with our suppliers to ensure
production processes meet our safety and quality standards," the
brand said in its media statement. [GN]

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Lifts Stay on Samson Class TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANTZ SAMSON, v. UNITED
HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00175-MJP (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order lifting the
stay:

  -- The Court finds that Samson has demonstrated a change of
     circumstances that permit lifting the current stay.  The
     Court therefore lifts the stay and gives Samson 30 days to
     amend his Motion for Class Certification.

  -- The Court does so without prejudice to United to bring a
     motion to dismiss. The clerk is ordered to provide copies
     of this order to all counsel.

  -- The Court finds that the holding in ACA Int'l and the FCC's
     yet to be determined standard is not incompatible with
     lifting the stay.

  -- The Ninth Circuit's decision in Lemos, made it the third
     circuit to rule on a company's liability for calling a
     party whose number had been reassigned.

  -- Turning to Samson's second argument, the Court finds that
     amending the classes further lifting the stay. Samson's
     proposed class amendments not only avoid duplicative
     litigation, but the classes would fall into categories in
     which it is clear the caller did not have prior express
     consent of the called party. Samson seeks leave to amend
     his class certification to classes that are limited to (1)
     prerecorded voice calls only, and (2) calls placed by the
     same teams that called Samson.

  -- Lastly, the Court finds it unlikely that the Eastern
     District of California will be able to resolve the Matlock
     cases in a timely manner. As of September 2022, the Eastern
     District of California has 5,744 pending civil cases and
     2,088 pending criminal cases. Of the available judges, that
     is 1,566 pending cases per judge. The Eastern District of
     California has the highest pending caseload in the Ninth
     Circuit and priority is first given to criminal cases.
     Because of the change in circumstances and Samson's request
     to narrow the classes to ensure they do not overlap with
     the Matlock cases, the Court finds that waiting for the
     Eastern District would unnecessarily draw out Samson's
     case.

The Plaintiff Frantz Samson filed this suit against the Defendant
in 2019 alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"). Mr. Samson began receiving automated calls from
United in 2018, asking him to call United regarding health
insurance coverage.

Samson never provided prior consent to receive these calls, but
appears to have inherited a phone number of someone whom United
previously called. Samson tried blocking the number, calling United
and asking to be taken off the list, and even attempting to "opt
out" of the calls, but nevertheless continued to receive calls.

United Healthcare  was founded in 1974. The company's line of
business includes providing hospital, medical, and other health
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vfkQ3w at no extra charge.[CC]

UPG ROADSIDE: Underpays Truck Drivers, Wright Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UPG ROADSIDE & TOWING INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-02829-SHM-atc (W.D. Tenn., December 7, 2022) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant alleging
the Defendant of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired as a driver of both larger trucks weighting
in excess of 5 tons and the smaller “snatch” truck weighting
less than 5 tons in towing and recovering vehicles for the
Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated truck drivers typically worked in excess of 40 hours per
week for the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not pay them at
the FLSA minimum wage rate of pay of $7.25 per hour within weekly
pay periods, and did not pay them for all hours worked over 40 per
week at the applicable overtime rates of pay within weekly pay
periods. In addition, the Defendants failed to keep proper time and
payroll records as required by the FLSA.

The Plaintiff and collective members have suffered, and will
continue to suffer, irreparable damage from the unlawful
compensation plans and practices of the Defendant. Thus, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated truck drivers, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation
costs, expenses, and disbursements together with reasonable
attorneys' fees, and expert fees, and other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

UPG Roadside & Towing Inc. owns and operates a mixture of larger
tow trucks and a smaller “snatch” truck in which it tows and
recovers vehicles in the Memphis, Tennessee area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

V&B AUTO: Fails to Pay Saleswomen's Minimum Wages, Gomez Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lina M. Gomez and other similarly situated individuals v. V & B
Auto Sales Corp, Victor R. Abreu, and Bianellys T. Marte de Abreu,
individually, Case No. 6:22-cv-02342 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 16, 2022)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, costs,
and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees worked for
the Defendants during one or more weeks on or after September 2022
without being adequately compensated.

Accordingly, the Defendants set a fixed commission per car sold.
This fixed commission per unit sold fluctuated due to many reasons.
As per Plaintiff's understanding, the Defendants changed that fixed
flat commission all the time, at their discretion, causing
Plaintiff a lot of confusion and great uncertainty about her
expected earnings for the week. Every week, Defendants settled the
Plaintiff's commissions, but they did not pay her the total amount
of earned commissions. The Plaintiff received only irregular
partial payments. The remaining balance was always carried forward
to the next payment period, the suit claims.

Regardless of the Defendants' payment plan arrangements, Plaintiff
was a commission-based inside salesperson, and she was entitled to
be paid at least at the minimum wage rate for all hours worked in a
week period, the suit further asserts.

The Plaintiff was hired as an inside, full-time used car
saleswoman. She had a mandatory pre-set regular schedule of 7 days
per week, a total of 65 hours every week. Plaintiff did not take
bonafide lunch periods.

V & B Auto is a used automobile dealership located at 5626 S.
Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

VIACOMCBS INC: Order on Parties' Proposed Class Notice Entered
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sara DeRosa v. ViacomCBS,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02965-MCS-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order regarding Parties' proposed
class notice and unsealing class certification.

      -- Dispute over Class Notice

         The parties dispute the characterization of the New
         York Wage and Hour Class claims certified in the
         Court's order granting Class Certification.

         The Court heard argument on December 19, 2022. The
         Court certified a New York Wage and Hour Class under
         New York Labor Law sections 191(1)(d), 195(1), and
         195(3) "consisting of:

         "all persons who were paid through Sessions Payroll for
         work as a background or stand-in actor or CBS
         television shows in New York, at any time from March
         30, 2014 to [October 11, 2022], against Sessions and
         the Viacom Defendants."

      -- Unsealing Order Granting Class Certification

         The Defendants Sessions Payroll Management Inc., Gail
         Levine, and Gregg Levine seek to keep page 11, lines 5
         through 23 of the Court's Order granting class
         certification under seal.

ViacomCBS is a global media and entertainment company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YGqLMF at no extra charge.[CC]

WALMART INC: Mag. Judge Recommends Part Dismissal of Sousa Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEORGE SOUSA, et al., Plaintiffs v. WALMART, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00500-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California recommends that the Court grants
in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
first amended consolidated complaint.

Sousa worked at the Hanford Walmart store as a non-exempt employee
in various positions, including associate, overnight support
manager, and other titles, from 2014 through October 2017. During
that time, he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The
Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week during the
retail "busy season," leading up to December 25th. After October
2017, he was promoted to assistant manager and retains that title
to the present day.

Martha Castro worked as a "greeter" at Walmart's retail location in
Roseville, California from approximately July 8, 2006, until Aug.
10, 2019. During this time, she routinely worked more than eight
hours per day. She was further required to wait in line
off-the-clock for security checks each day at the end of each
shift.

The proposed Class members are all people who are or who have been
employed by the Defendants as hourly non-exempt employees,
including but not limited to associates, cashiers, stockers,
attendants, pharmacists, custodians, security guards, and other
hourly and non-exempt employees throughout the State of California
within the four years preceding the filing of the FAC.

The proposed Night Shift Manager Subclass are all people who are or
who have been employed by the Defendants as hourly, non-exempt
overnight support managers and/or night managers, or other
positions with similar job duties, throughout the State of
California within the four years preceding the filing of the FAC.

Pursuant to a uniform policy originated by the Defendants and used
across all their facilities throughout California, all hourly
employees are subject to daily bag searches for potential
contraband when they leave the premises. As a result of Defendants'
uniform security check policy, the Plaintiffs and the Class members
were systematically denied minimum wage for all time worked, as
well as required overtime pay.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants employ, or employed,
thousands of people similarly situated to them during the four-year
period prior to the filing of the FAC. The Defendants' method of
paying the Plaintiffs and the Class members was willful and not
based on a good faith and reasonable belief that its conduct
complied with California law. The Defendants routinely failed to
maintain true and accurate records of the hours worked by Class
members. In particular, they failed to record hours that the
Plaintiffs and the Class members work while off the clock. Their
conduct is willful, is carried out in bad faith, and causes
significant damages to non-exempt hourly employees.

The FAC raises the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay
overtime wages pursuant to California Labor Code section 510; (2)
failure to pay minimum wages pursuant to California Labor Code
sections 1182.11, 1182,12, 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; (3) failure to
authorize and permit and/or make available rest periods pursuant to
California Labor Code sections 226 and 512; (4) waiting time
penalties pursuant to California Labor Code sections 201-203; (5)
violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200
et seq.; (6) statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code
section 2698 et seq.

On March 24, 2020, Castro filed her initial complaint in Placer
County Superior Court -- Castro v. Walmart Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00928
(E.D. Cal. May 6, 2020). On May 6, 2020, Walmart removed the matter
to the Sacramento Division of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California. On May 22, 2020, Castro filed a
first amended class action complaint. On June 5, 2020, Walmart
filed a motion to dismiss Castro's claim for inaccurate wage
statements under California Labor Code section 226 on the ground
that it was derivative of her claims for off-the-clock work and
thus sought an improper double recovery. On Aug. 17, 2020, the
Court granted Walmart's motion to dismiss and dismissed Castro's
failure to provide accurate wage statements claim with prejudice.

Meanwhile, on April 7, 2020, Sousa filed his initial complaint
against Defendants in this Court. On June 15, 2020, the Defendants
filed an answer. On April 29, 2021, Sousa and the Defendants filed
a stipulation to consolidate his action with Castro. On May 7,
2021, the parties in Castro stated they agreed to consolidation. On
May 11, 2021, the Court consolidated the cases and the Plaintiffs
were granted leave to file a consolidated complaint.

On May 12, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On
June 9, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to partially dismiss
the consolidated complaint. On Aug. 12, 2021, the parties filed a
stipulation for the Defendants to withdraw the motion to dismiss
and for the Plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint.

On Aug. 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
complaint. On Sept. 3, 2021, the Defendants filed the instant
motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs have filed an opposition, and the
Defendants have filed a reply. On Sept. 12, 2022, the motion to
dismiss was referred to Judge Grosjean.

The Plaintiffs' Fifth Cause of Action is for violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), which prohibits "any
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." THe
Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' UCL claim because the
Plaintiffs: (1) fail to allege an inadequate remedy at law, (2)
lack standing for injunctive relief, and (3) cannot recover
penalties under the UCL.

Judge Grosjean finds that the FAC does not allege that the
Plaintiffs lack an adequate legal remedy. Accordingly, she
recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted on
this ground and the Plaintiffs' Fifth Cause of Action be dismissed
with leave to amend. She also finds that to the extent the
Plaintiff attempts to rely on the unnamed putative class members'
potential future harm as the basis for injunctive relief, that
argument fails. Accordingly, she recommends that the Defendants'
motion to dismiss be granted on this ground and the Plaintiffs'
Fifth Cause of Action be dismissed with leave to amend.

Turning to the Defendants' alleged failure to provide rest periods
and accurate wage statements, Judge Grosjean finds that the rest
period premium wages are recoverable under the UCL, so she
recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be denied on this
ground. She also recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss
be granted as to the Plaintiffs' Fifth Cause of Action be dismissed
without leave to amend insofar as it seeks recovery for wage
statement violations because it is well recognized that penalties
for wage statement violations are not recoverable under the UCL as
they are not restitutionary.

In addition, all allegations in the FAC pertaining to Sam's Club,
including the putative class definitions, should be dismissed.
Judge Grosjean finds that the Plaintiffs agree that class
allegations pertaining to Sam's club employees should be dismissed.
Accordingly, she recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss
be granted on this ground and that all allegations in the FAC
pertaining to Sam's Club be dismissed without leave to amend. She
also recommends that Defendants' motion to dismiss the UCL claim on
behalf of the night manager subclass be denied because the district
court should defer consideration of whether a plaintiff is an
adequate class representative until the class certification stage
of proceedings.

Because the FAC makes clear that the PAGA claims do not begin until
July 8, 2021, Judge Grosjean recommends that the Defendants' motion
to dismiss be granted on this ground and the Sixth Cause of Action
be dismissed for lack of Article III standing with leave to amend.
She further recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
PAGA claim as to the overtime, rest break, and expense
reimbursement violations be granted in part and denied in part and
that the Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action be dismissed without
leave to amend insofar as it seeks recovery for rest break and
unreimbursed expenses violations. Despite her conclusion that the
Plaintiffs satisfy PAGA's notice requirements as to the overtime
violations, she notes that their PAGA claim for overtime violations
is subject to dismissal given her determination that the Sixth
Cause of Action should be dismissed for lack of Article III
standing.

The Defendants also move to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8, the Plaintiffs' PAGA claim for alleged
violations of Labor Code sections 226 (wage statement) and 2802
(expense reimbursement) because the FAC does not provide any
allegations that support these claims. The Plaintiffs concede that
they neglected to include Section 226 allegations in the PAGA cause
of action. Accordingly, Judge Grosjean recommends that the
Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted on this ground, the Sixth
Cause of Action be dismissed for failure to satisfy Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8 with respect to the wage statement violations,
and the Plaintiffs be granted leave to amend.

Finally, given that a PAGA claim and penalties are legally and
conceptually distinct from an employee's own suit and damages or
penalties for individual violations, Judge Grosjean finds that a
PAGA claim for wage statement violations would not be barred by the
law-of-the-case doctrine in this instance. Accordingly, she
recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be denied on this
ground. Despite this conclusion, she notes that the Plaintiffs'
PAGA claim for wage statement violations is subject to dismissal
given the Court's determination that the Sixth Cause of Action
claim should be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.

Accordingly, Judge Grosjean recommends that:

      a. the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and
denied in part;

      b. the Plaintiffs' Sam's Club allegations, the Fifth Cause of
Action (UCL claim) with respect to wage statement violations, and
the Sixth Cause of Action (PAGA claim) with respect to expense
reimbursement and rest break violations be dismissed without leave
to amend;

     c. save and except as noted, the Fifth Cause of Action (UCL
claim) and the Sixth Cause of Action (PAGA claim) be dismissed with
leave to amend ; and

     d. the Plaintiffs be granted leave to file a second amended
consolidated complaint.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the U.S.
District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636 (b)(1). Within 14 days after
being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any
party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy
on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the
objections will be served and filed within FOURTEEN (14) days after
service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to
file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver
of rights on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2022 Findings &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/22w699ky from
Leagle.com.


WASHINGTON: Fails to Comply With Youth Outpatient Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Seattle Times reports that Gov. Jay Inslee and other top
government officials are pitching budget increases and a series of
potentially transformative policy proposals aimed at curbing long
psychiatric-related hospitalizations known as "boarding" among the
state's youth.

Inslee is proposing an additional $14 million to support a
long-term inpatient program for youth, plus $23.5 million in
construction funds for children's behavioral health facilities,
according to his two-year budget.

About 20 children and teens with psychiatric conditions are living
unnecessarily in Western Washington hospitals every day, according
to data from the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. They're
"boarding," which means it's unsafe for them to discharge home, but
there's no suitable place for them to receive the psychiatric
treatment they need.

Housed at the Hospital

In an occasional series, The Seattle Times Mental Health Project is
investigating why children are waiting days or weeks for vital
psychiatric care.

The Seattle Times has spent a year reporting on kids stuck inside
hospitals, revealing that youth inpatient psychiatric
hospitalizations have nearly doubled since 2015 and youth
behavioral health services were consistently underfunded in the
years before the pandemic. The Times' Housed at the Hospital series
also found that hundreds of youth live in emergency departments and
other hospital units each year and wait months for inpatient care.
The state is failing to comply with a class-action lawsuit that
guarantees youth outpatient care, and public agencies no longer
step in when children are abandoned in emergency rooms.

Washington currently funds 129 youth long-term inpatient
psychiatric beds, but has struggled to keep many of the beds online
because of a workforce shortage and an inability to compete with
higher paying behavioral health agencies.

Inslee's budget proposal would add an additional eight beds to the
Children's Long-term Inpatient Program and raise Medicaid
reimbursement rates by 31% to keep existing CLIP providers afloat.
The budget also includes $9.3 million to extend a pilot program for
youth that involves intensive outpatient care and is an alternative
to full-time hospitalization. Nearly $4 million would support youth
inpatient navigators, who help families find alternative resources
when inpatient care isn't available.

An additional $10.6 million would raise reimbursement rates for
programs that provide Applied Behavior Analysis, a therapy for
youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

"[Inslee] is really going to put this at the top of the list and
he's going to ask the Legislature to do the same," said Amber
Leaders, senior policy advisor on behavioral health, aging and
disability in the governor's office.

The recommendations are mostly in line with policy proposals from
the state's Children and Youth Behavioral Health Work Group, which
advises the Legislature and has said boarding and mental health
workforce concerns are top policy priorities next session.

The group is proposing a package of policies that would improve
access to outpatient behavioral health care, expand a program for
high-needs youth called Wraparound with Intensive Services (WISe),
codify the process for finding treatment for youth in crisis and
study the pros and cons of therapeutic boarding schools, which
don't exist in Washington. Hospitals, which are eating thousands of
dollars each day in nonreimbursable costs tied to boarding, are
also pushing for policy change. Seattle Children's, for instance,
is floating a bill that would hold the state responsible when youth
are abandoned at hospitals.

News coverage of the boarding crisis has "daylighted it for the
broader community," said co-chair of the workgroup state Rep. Lisa
Callan, D-Issaquah. She said the reporting has allowed the
Legislature, "when we are in a tougher economic time budget-wise .
. . to still keep a behavioral health priority high on the
agenda."

The 2023 legislative session begins Jan. 9. [GN]

WATERWORKS OPERATING: Scheduling Order Entered in Amica Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated as
subrogee of Brian Marchiony, v. WATERWORKS OPERATING CO., LLC, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00751-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala
entered a scheduling order as follows:

-- Any motion to amend the complaint      January 13, 2023
    or join parties must be filed by
    the Plaintiff no later than:

-- Any motion to amend the answer or      January 13, 2023
    join parties must be filed by
    the Defendant no later than:

-- Initial disclosures pursuant to        January 17, 2023
    Rule 26(a)(1) must be exchanged
    by:

-- All discovery relating to class        August 15, 2023
    certification will be completed
    (not propounded) by:

-- The Plaintiff's motion for class       August 15, 2023
    certification shall be filed no
    later than:

-- The Defendant will file any            September 12, 2023
    opposition to the motion for
    class certification no later
    than:

-- The Plaintiff shall file any           September 26, 2023.
    reply in further support of its
    motion for class certification
    no later than:

Waterworks provides building products and equipment.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HY84xM at no extra charge.[CC]


WELLA OPERATIONS: Collects Data Without Consent, Shores Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANA SHORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLA OPERATIONS US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-07152 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2022) alleges violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2008.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite consumer
concerns regarding facial-scanning technology, and BIPA's clear
mandate, the Defendant, a multi-million-dollar haircare company,
has refused, and continues to refuse, to inform users that it is
using technology on its website to collect the Plaintiff and the
Class's biometric facial scans, and neither informs users that
their biometric identifiers are being collected, nor asks for their
consent.

Unbeknownst to its website users, including the Plaintiff and the
Class, the Defendant collects detailed and sensitive biometric
identifiers and information, including complete facial scans, of
its users through the Virtual Try-On tool, and it does this without
first obtaining their consent, or informing them that this data is
being collected, says the suit.

Wella Operations US LLC operates as a special purpose entity. The
Company manufactures and markets a wide range of personal care
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

WELLS FARGO: Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUY BLESSINGER, AUDRA
NISKI, NELSON FERREIRA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, Case No.
8:22-cv-01029-TPB-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order extending the Plaintiffs' deadline to file their
motion seeking class certification until January 31, 2023, with
Defendant's response due March 31, 2023.

The Parties have been working together to schedule and complete
depositions to support their forthcoming class certification
briefs. However, despite their efforts, they require some
additional time to complete the depositions and submit
well-supported briefs to the Court. This is also due, in part, to
the intervening Christmas and New Year's Eve Holidays. Importantly,
no other deadlines from the Case Management Order will be impacted
by the extension sought here.

The Plaintiffs' current deadline to file their Motion for Class
Certification is January 13, 2023, and the current deadline for
Defendant's response is March 14, 2023.

Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services
company.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jjdtVX at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813)229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com
                  gnichols@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian D. Equi, Esq.
          Shawn y. Libman, Esq.
          BOWMAN AND BROOKE, LLP
          1064 Greenwood Boulevard, Suite 212
          Lake Mary, FL 32746-5419
          Telephone: (407) 585-7600
          Facsimile: (407) 585-7610
          E-mail: brian.equi@bowmanandbrooke.com
                  shawn.libman@bowmanandbrooke.com

                - and -

          Edward J. Meehan, Esq.
          Mark C. Nielsen, Esq.
          Paul J. Rinefierd, Esq.
          GROOM LAW GROUP , CHARTERED
          1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 1200
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 861-2602
          Facsimile: (202) 659-4503
          E-mail: emeehan@groom.com
                  mnielsen@groom.com
                  prinefierd@groom.com

WESTPAC LIFE: Settles BT Funds Class Action for $29.95 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Slater and Gordon on Dec. 18 disclosed that tens of thousands of
Australians may receive compensation after Slater and Gordon and
Westpac reached a $29.95 million settlement in a class action
against the bank's subsidiaries BT Funds Management Limited and
Westpac Life Insurance Services Limited.

The settlement, which is subject to court approval, was negotiated
on behalf of customers who had invested their super in the BT Super
cash option between 2007 and 2019.

The class action was filed in 2019 -- the third in Slater and
Gordon's Get Your Super Back campaign.

It alleged that members who invested in the BT Super for Life
cash-only option received lower returns because BT invested their
funds through Westpac Life allowing Westpac Life to earn fees
without providing a valuable service.

Slater and Gordon Special Counsel Nathan Rapoport said: "The case
alleged BT prioritised Westpac Life's profits over its duty to seek
the best returns available for its members' retirement savings,
leading to lower returns for members".

"Superannuation members trust their funds with their retirement
savings and place their faith in them to protect their future," Mr
Rapoport said.

"We are pleased this settlement means that group members will be
getting millions of dollars of compensation.

"This result would not be possible without a class actions regime
that allows one person to represent the interests of thousands of
others like them who might not even be aware of their legal
rights."

The settlement was reached on a 'no admissions' basis and BT and
Westpac Life both deny any liability. [GN]

WHOLE FOODS: Faces Hornthal Suit Over Whole Hot Pizzas' False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HORNTHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-07114 (N.D.
Ill., Dec. 16, 2022) sues the Defendant for misbranding and false
and misleading advertising of its prepared whole hot pizzas as "18"
Hot Pizza," "18" hand-stretched pizzas," and "18" Whole Pies"
(collectively, "18" Claims").

At certain Whole Foods locations, the pizzas marketed using the 18"
Claims are not 18 inches, but instead are only 16 inches and are
sold in 16-inch by 16-inch boxes (the "Product"). The difference is
not the result of normal variation in handmade food -- the Product
is sold in 16 -- inch by 16-inch boxes (the "Product box" or
"Product boxes"). With respect to the Product, the 18" Claims are
false, misleading, and likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.
Whole Foods continues to market and promote the Product using the
18" Claims while selling consumers pizzas that are approximately
20% smaller in area, says the suit.

Whole Foods breached the express warranty by selling a product that
did not conform to the affirmations of fact and descriptions. The
Product is not 18 inches in diameter. It is approximately 16 inches
in diameter, and contains less dough, cheese, sauce, and toppings
than a pizza of the advertised size. Plaintiff did not receive what
he paid for, the lawsuit claims.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated consumers to recover the amounts Plaintiff and
the Class members overpaid, and to prevent Defendant from
continuing to engage in its unlawful, deceptive, and unfair
conduct, and to correct the false perception it has created in the
marketplace through its misrepresentations of material facts.

Whole Foods sells whole hot pizzas at Whole Foods as part of its
prepared food offerings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
          Riley W. Prince, Esq.
          Nicholas W. Blue, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
                  rprince@barnowlaw.com
                  nblue@barnowlaw.com

WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Lumsden Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG LUMSDEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.; WILLIAMS-SONOMA
STORES, INC.; Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10341 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 7, 2022) is a class action complaint brought by the
Plaintiff seeking for damages and other legal and equitable relief
against the Defendants for their alleged improper compensation
policies in violations of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a visual
merchandiser in 2015 to work at a Pottery Barn store.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to timely
compensate him and other similarly situated Manual Workers on a
timely basis. Instead of paying them on a weekly basis, the
Defendants paid them on a bi-weekly basis. As a result of the
Defendants' improper compensation policies, they suffered actual
and acute injuries. The Defendants' late wage payments deprived
them of the time value of their earned money, resulting in tangible
financial loss calculated as interest and in other amounts,
including fees, penalties, and interest; and loss in the form of
the negative impact on their ability to save, invest, and plan for
the future, says the Plaintiff.

The Corporate Defendants operate furniture and home goods stores
and outlets across the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com

WYKAGYL COUNTRY CLUB: Hopkins Sues Over Golf Caddie's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT "BOBBY" HOPKINS, Individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WYKAGYL COUNTRY CLUB,
Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-10399 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2022) is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law against the Defendant for its failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime premium pay, failure to pay
spread-of-hours pay, failure to provide wage notices, and failure
to provide wage statements.

Plaintiff Hopkins was employed by the Defendant as a golf caddy
from 1993 to November 2022.

Wykagyl Country Club is a private golf club in New Rochelle, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: Doug@lipskylowe.com  

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Pays $1.3BB to Resolve Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf of Bloomberg Law reports that Honeywell International
Inc. won court approval to make a $1.3 billion final payment that
ends evergreen financing obligations to an asbestos injury trust
established in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of a former affiliate.

Judge Thomas P. Agresti of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania issued a 93-page opinion Thursday,
December 8, 2022, approving the settlement between Honeywell and
the North American Refractories Asbestos Personal Injury
Settlement
Trust.

As reported in the TCR, Honeywell International Inc. has reached a
deal to pay more than $1.3 billion to end claims of asbestos
exposure in the Chapter 11 case of its former subsidiary North
American Refractories Co.

On Nov. 18, 2022, Honeywell International filed a current report
on
Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing,
among other things, that Honeywell had entered into a definitive
agreement (the "Buyout Agreement") with the North American
Refractories Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust (the
"Trust"), providing for the elimination of Honeywell's funding
obligations to the Trust.

Honeywell will make a one-time, lump sum payment in the amount of
$1.325 billion (the "Buyout Amount") to the Trust in exchange for
the release by the Trust of Honeywell from all further and future
obligations of any kind related to the Trust and/or any claimants
who were exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured,
sold
or distributed by North American Refractories Company ("NARCO") or
its predecessors, including Honeywell's ongoing evergreen
obligation to fund (i) claims against the Trust, which comprise
Honeywell's NARCO asbestos-related claims liability, and (ii) the
Trust's annual operating expenses, including its legal fees (which
operating expenses, for reference, were approximately $21 million
in 2021) (such evergreen obligations referred to in (i) and (ii),
the "Honeywell Obligations"). Following the consummation of the
foregoing transactions (the "Buyout Closing"), Honeywell will have
limited obligations to the Trust as set forth in the Buyout
Agreement and the Existing Confidentiality Agreement.


                            *********

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 ***