/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230111.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, January 11, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 9

                            Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Glenon Suit Over Medical Info Disclosure
APPLE INC: Claims Filing in MacBook Keyboard Settlement Due March 7
ARGENT TRUST: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Lloyd ERISA Suit
AS BEAUTY: Faces Brown Suit Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
BANK OF AMERICA: Cantero Files Certiorari Petition in Supreme Court

BC FOOD: Faces Gomez Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BISCUITVILLE INC: Deryas Seeks More Time to File Reply Brief
BOSCO CONTRACTOR: Campbell Bid for Class Status Tossed as Moot
BRIAN JOHNSON: Altomare Sues Over Ancestral Supplements' False Ads
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Feb. 10 Class Cert Oral Argument Hearing

CIRCLE K STORES: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Pettersen
DENVER SHERIFFS: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by Feb. 1,
DMG MORI: Class Action Settlement in Arnold Suit Gets Final Nod
DURHAM FOODS: Underpays Kitchen Employees, Thompson Suit Claims
EMBRY-RIDDLE: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines

GIESEN MANAGEMENT: Must Submit Joint Status Report by Feb. 10
GINA RAIMONDO: Wins Summary Judgment v. Murphy
GOOGLE LLC: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Google Play Antitrust Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Hammerling Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
GRANITE SERVICES: Rodriguez Seeks to Certify Field Employee Class

GRAYBUG VISION: Bushansky Balks at Merger Deal With CalciMedica
GROW CARE: Faces Caban Class Suit Over Illegal Collection Letter
INFUCARE RX: Court Accepts Response to Sharfman's Objections
JOHNSON MARK: Spence Files FDCPA Suit in D. Utah
JP MORGAN: Musharbash Suit Removed to E.D. California

L'OCCITANE INC: Reyes Sues Over Unlawful Oversized Packaging
LANDS' END: Gomez Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
LIVE NATION: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LULU'S MYRTLE BEACH: Burdick Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
M.A.'S SOUL FOOD: Ascencion Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage

MACYS WEST: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Diaz Suit to 9th Cir.
MARCUS MYERS: Thibodeaux Loses Bid to Certify Class
MASA SUSHI: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum & OT Wages, Chen Says
MELDA COMEDY: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MEMORIAL HEALTH: Moore Suit Removed to C.D. California

META PLATFORMS: C.C. Suit Transferred in N.D. California
META PLATFORMS: Calderon Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
META PLATFORMS: Naugle Suit Transferred in N.D. California
MICHAELS STORES: Solis Suit Removed to C.D. California
MUNCHKIN INC: Faces Kulp Suit Over Defective Sturdy Potty Seats

NEW YORK: EMS Officers Union Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
NIGHTFOOD INC: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Mejia Class Suit
NOBLR RECIPROCAL: Greenstein Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
NORTH MISSISSIPPI HEALTH: Woods File Bid for Class Certification
NUTRA BULK: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York

OMNI HOTELS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ONE STOP: Fails to Pay Store Assistants' OT Wages, Bouchouk Alleges
PAPA JOHN'S: Bazemore Appeals Arbitration, Case Dismissal Rulings
PAPA JOHN'S: Perry Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
PEABODY ENERGY: OPERF Bid to Certify Class Nixed w/o Prejudice

PELICAN INVESTMENT: Auto Knight Appeals Dismiss Bid Ruling in Webb
PELICAN INVESTMENT: Dealer Loyalty Appeals Ruling in Webb Suit
PET KING BRANDS: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PIERRE FABRE: Valenzuela Suit Removed to S.D. California
PRATT QUALITY: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Williams Suit Alleges

RAJA 786: Chowdhury Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
RHODE ISLAND: Liberty Class Suit Stayed
SAFEWAY TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Dispatchers' OT, Goudy Says
SALESFORCE INC: Yockey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
SAN FRANCISCO BAR: Reed Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

SANDHILLS MEDICAL: Ford Appeals PI Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
SAVE MART: Salazar Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES: Funchess Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES: Thomas Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS: Handler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York

SEQUOIA BENEFITS: Mitra Sues Over Exposure of PII
SERVICELINK NLS: Appeals Remand Order in Rinsch Suit to 9th Cir.
SHOP -N- SAVE: Nunez Files Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
SHREDZ SUPPLEMENTS: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York
SI ONLINE LLC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SILVER CINEMAS: Osheske Suit Removed to C.D. California
SOLO FUNDS: Checchia Sues Over Unlawful Misrepresentation
SOMNIA INC: Sommers Files Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Capdeville Sues Over Unrefunded Canceled Flight
STEEL CITY COLLECTIBLES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

STERICYCLE INC: ISCO Sues Over Medical Waste Disposal Price Hike
STRENGTHEN LENGTHEN: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SYNEOS HEALTH: Scurlock Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
TECHWATER LLC: Florez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
THEORY LLC: Ezra Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls

TIC INTERNATIONAL: Jaros Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
TIKTOK INC: Fleming Sues Over Secretly Intercepted Contents
TITLE 9 SPORTS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TORRANCE MEMORIAL: Heard Suit Removed to C.D. California
TOWER WAV: Haynes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

TRANSLATIONS.COM INC: Iravanian Suit Removed to N.D. California
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Frankl Sues Over False Debt Collection Practice
TRINITY TEEN: Sherman Brings Another Appeal to 10th Cir.
TWITTER INC: Jackson Sues Over Censorship Scheme
TYWISH LLC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

UMPQUA BANK: Appeals Summary Judgment Bid Denial in Camenisch Suit
UNITED STATES: Appeals Summary Judgment in Huisha-Huisha Suit
UNITED STATES: Class Action Settlement in Guerrero Gets Final Nod
WILLIAM BARR: Bird Class Status Bid Due March 15, 2024
WRIGHT & FILIPPIS: Eckel Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of PII


                            *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Glenon Suit Over Medical Info Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DJ GLENON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-02061-GPC-DEB (S.D. Cal.,
Dec. 28, 2022) seeks for damages and injunctive relief against the
Defendant for violations of the Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, in relation to the unauthorized disclosure of the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' medical information.

The Plaintiff brings this action for violations of the CMIA which
provides for statutory damages of $1,000 per violation. The
Defendant's sales team works closely with doctors, hospitals and
medical groups encouraging them to recommend and prescribe
Defendant's pharmaceutical products, medical devices, etc., says
the suit.

In October of 2022, the Medical Group sent the Defendant a patient
list for joint marketing purposes. On October 10, 2022, an agent of
the Defendant sent an email to the patients on the list including
the Plaintiff and all Class Members. The email contained
information such as medical conditions, treatments, systems,
devices, therapies, doctor names, Medical Group name, studies,
results and Defendant's contact information.

On December 7, 2022, the Medical Group sent the Plaintiff and Class
Members a Notice of Data Breach Letter. The Plaintiff was surprised
that the Medical Group disclosed his information to the Defendant,
but he was even more shocked, upset and embarrassed that Defendant
disclosed his medical information to hundreds of strangers. The
Defendant allegedly caused the Plaintiff and Class Members to
suffer invasions of legally protected interests. The invasions were
concrete because the injuries actually existed and continue to
exist now that their medical information has been disseminated. The
privacy invasions suffered by them were real and not abstract,
added the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are patients of one of the medical
groups.

Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care
company with headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois.[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

APPLE INC: Claims Filing in MacBook Keyboard Settlement Due March 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Francie Swidler, writing for Macworld, reports that all claims must
be submitted electronically, e-mailed or postmarked "no later than
March 6, 2023," in the case captioned In re MacBook Keyboard
Litigation Settlement, Case No. 5:18-cv-02813-EJD-VKD. If you
purchased an Apple MacBook laptop equipped with a certain kind of
keyboard between the years of 2015 and 2019, you may be eligible
for a payment of up to $395 as part of a nationwide class-action
settlement.

A class-action lawsuit filed in 2022 alleges that MacBook laptops
sold between 2015-2019 contained defective butterfly keyboards. The
malfunctions, the lawsuit claims, can result in "characters
repeating unexpectedly; letters or characters not appearing; and/or
the keys feeling "sticky" or not responding in a consistent
manner."

While Apple denies all allegations claimed in the suit, a
settlement of $50 million was reached in July of 2022.

The lawsuit was originally limited to eligible users in the eight
states where consumers brought about the suit -- Massachusetts, New
York, Illinois, Florida, Washington, New Jersey, and Michigan.
However, a November 2022 decision from a judge in a Northern
California District Court approved the $50 million settlement to
apply to purchasers of the specific MacBook laptops nationwide.

The $50 million settlement states that Apple denies that any
MacBooks are defective, "and denies that Apple did anything
improper or unlawful," adding that "Apple asserts numerous defenses
to the claims in this case," and that the settlement to resolve the
case "is not an admission of guilt or wrongdoing of any kind by
Apple."

If you did purchase a MacBook between 2015 and 2019, you might be
owed a payout. However, the amount you could receive is based on
tiers, and you'll need specific information in order to correctly
file a claim.

Eligible purchasers received a notice via email or postcard with a
Unique ID and Pin number in order to file a claim, the settlement
website states.[GN]

ARGENT TRUST: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Lloyd ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argent Trust Company, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated December 6, 2022 entered in the
lawsuit entitled JAMAAL LLOYD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY;
HERBERT WETANSON; GREGOR WETANSON; and STUART WETANSON, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04129, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Employee Stock Ownership Plan
("ESOP") trustee, Argent Trust Company ("Argent"), and the
Company's controlling managers and shareholders, Herbert Wetanson,
Gregor Wetanson, and Stuart Wetanson (the "Seller Defendants"),
caused the Plan to engage in prohibited transactions and breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of the Company
to the ESOP for an inflated purchase price that far exceeded its
fair market value, and by arranging for continued payments to the
Seller Defendants in connection with the sale.

On October 3, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration and stay the case or, in the alternative, to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which the Court denied on
December 6, 2022 through an Order signed by Judge Denise L. Cote.

The appellate case is captioned as Lloyd v. Argent Trust Company,
Case No. 22-3116, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on Dec. 9, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Argent Trust Company, Herbert Wetanson,
Gregor Wetanson, and Stuart Wetanson are represented by:

          Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
          GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
          1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 861-6615

Plaintiffs-Appellees Jamaal Lloyd and Anastasia Jenkins,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on
behalf of the W BBQ Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan,
are represented by:

          Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-0177

AS BEAUTY: Faces Brown Suit Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAPRENA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AS BEAUTY GROUP (ASBG) LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07288
(N.D. Ill., Dec. 28, 2022), alleges that ASBG collects its website
users' detailed and sensitive biometric identifiers and
information, including complete facial scans, through the Virtual
Try-On tool without first obtaining their consent, or informing
them that this data is being collected, in violation of Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff contends that ASBG fails to disclose to visitors of
its website who use the Virtual Try-On tool -- including Plaintiff
and the other Class members -- that their biometric information or
biometric identifiers are being collected or stored. ASBG also
fails to provide users of a specific purpose for the collection of
their biometric information or biometric identifiers, or a schedule
setting out the length of time during which that biometric
information or biometric identifiers will be collected, stored,
used, or will be destroyed.

Accordingly, ASBG invites consumers to virtually "try on" its
high-end beauty products through its website's "Virtual Try-On"
feature. Through this feature, visitors to ASBG's website --
including the  Plaintiff and the other Class members -- are able to
view themselves in an AI impression reflecting the beauty product
on their face. All a user has to do is enable their computer or
phone camera to engage a live video session or upload their photo
to the website.

As a result, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the other
Class members, ask the Court to impose upon ASBG the BIPA-mandated
statutory penalties relating to the collection, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiff' biometric identifiers and biometric
information, as well as injunctive relief requiring ASBG's
destruction of already-collected and stored information, and its
adoption of disclosures which inform consumers about ASBG's
collection of their biometric data and identifiers, the suit says.

While at her home in Illinois, Ms. Brown used ASBG's website
(https://www.coverfx.com/) at least once on June of 2022 to try on
various beauty products. She accessed ASBG's Virtual Try-On tool on
her phone and used the real-time Virtual Try-On feature. Ms. Brown
never provided a written release to ASBG authorizing it to collect,
store, or use her facial scans or facial geometry, and she was
never informed, in writing or otherwise, about the purpose for
collecting her biometric data. Ms. Brown does not remember seeing
any terms of service or privacy policy whenusing the Virtual Try-On
tool, nor does she remember ASBG making such policies readily
accessible so that she could review them prior to using the Virtual
Try-On tool, added the suit.

ASBG sells makeup and other types of beauty related products
through its North American website.[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
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Cantero Files Certiorari Petition in Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alex Cantero, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Alex Cantero, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Petitioners v. Bank of America, N.A.,
Respondents, Case No. 22-529.

Response is due on January 9, 2023.

Petitioners Cantero, et al., filed a writ of certiorari to review
the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in the case titled Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., Case
Nos. 21-400, 21-403, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendant failed to pay interest to Plaintiff and
the class members on funds held in escrow accounts.

According to the complaint, the Defendant like many mortgage
lenders, regularly requires borrowers to maintain escrow accounts
containing sufficient funds to cover payments for property taxes
and insurance on mortgaged properties. The Defendant collects the
funds from borrowers in advance, holds the funds in escrow
accounts, and then directly pays property taxes and insurance
premiums when they become due.

In violation of New York State law, the Defendant did not pay
Plaintiff and members of the Class he seeks to represent interest
on amounts paid into these escrow accounts. Instead, Defendant uses
this money to generate "float" income for itself. Money sitting in
an escrow account is the property of the borrower, not the
Defendant.

For this reason, in New York, Defendant is required to pay interest
on amounts in escrow accounts to the true owner of the account and
may not use those amounts solely for its own benefit. Because the
Defendant has ignored this legal obligation, the Plaintiff brought
the class action to stop the unlawful conduct and to seek redress
for borrowers who did not receive the interest to which they were
entitled.

In a memorandum and order dated September 30, 2019, the Court
denied the Bank's motions to dismiss two of Plaintiffs' four claims
on the ground that the National Bank Act preempts New York General
Obligation Law Section 5-601 (the "Prior Order"). The Bank moved to
amend the Prior Order to certify the preemption question for an
interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and to
stay further proceedings before the Court pending a decision from
the Second Circuit. The motions to amend the Prior Order were
granted and the motions to stay were denied without prejudice to
renewing the motions before the Magistrate Judge if the Second
Circuit grants permission to file the interlocutory appeal.

On September 15, 2022, the order of the District Court was
reversed, and the cases were remanded for further proceedings
consistent with the Court's opinion.

On October 19, 2022, the Court ORDERED that costs are taxed in
favor of Appellant in the amount of $1,101.95.

On October 24, 2022, based upon the Second Circuit's decision dated
September 15, 2022 the complaint was dismissed in entirety.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees-Petitioners Alex Cantero, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Jonathan Ellis Taylor, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          2001 K Street NW Suite 850 North
          Washington, DC 20006
          E-mail: jon@guptawessler.com

BC FOOD: Faces Gomez Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
RUDDY ULLOA GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BC FOOD & PRODUCE CORP. d/b/a
PIONEER SUPERMARKET, and BRUNO CORONA, as an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07576 (E.D.N.Y., December 14, 2022) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around May
2015 until in or around May 2021 as a security guard and doorman
while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants.

Although the Defendants regularly required the Plaintiff to work
more than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff was denied of his
lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants also did not pay him an
extra hour at the legally prescribed minimum wage for each day that
the Plaintiff worked in excess of 10 hours. Additionally, the
Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll records, and willfully
failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage
requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL. Moreover, the
Defendants willfully failed to provide the Plaintiff with any wage
statements, and with a written notice of her applicable regular
rate of pay, regular pay day, and all such information as required
by NYLL, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages, for
himself and all other similarly situated security guards and
doormen, as well as unpaid spread of hours compensation, liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs together
with reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court
deems necessary and proper.

BC Food & Produce Corp. d/b/a Pioneer Supermarket operates a
supermarket. Bruno Corona is the owner and Chief Executive Officer
of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Tel: (718) 263-9591

BISCUITVILLE INC: Deryas Seeks More Time to File Reply Brief
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IHAB DERYAS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BISCUITVILLE,
INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00600 (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order extending the time through which the
Plaintiff may file his reply brief in support of Plaintiff's Motion
for Conditional Certification.

On November 18, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for
Conditional Certification in this action.

On November 23, 2022, Biscuitville moved for, and was ultimately
granted an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification that moved the deadline to December 23,
2022, two (2) days before Christmas.

On December 23, 2022, the Defendant filed its opposition, including
1,658 pages of affidavits and exhibits.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.3(h), Plaintiff's reply brief would
therefore be due to be filed within 14 days, on or before the end
of the day on January 6, 2023.

The Defendant's opposition and extensive attachments require
significant research and briefing that, considering the Christmas
and New Year holidays, reasonably require additional time.

In accordance with LR 6.1(a), counsel for Plaintiff has consulted
with counsel for Defendant regarding the above-mentioned deadline
and their request for an extension of time. Defendant's counsel
consents to Plaintiff's request for an order extending time limits
for Plaintiff's forthcoming reply brief by two-weeks, through
January 20, 2023.

Pursuant to LR 7.3(j), this Motion is accompanied by a proposed
Consent Order Extending Time to File Reply designated as Exhibit
A.

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

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 3, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qdf7VD at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BOSCO CONTRACTOR: Campbell Bid for Class Status Tossed as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFERY CAMPBELL, v. BOSCO
CONTRACTOR SERVICES, LLC, and LOUIS BOSCO, Case No.
1:22-cv-01146-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Jon A. York
entered an order denying class certification as moot:

Before the Court is Plaintiff's November 14, 2022 Motion to Certify
Class. On December 29, 2022, the Defendants filed a Notice of
Settlement. As such, the Motion to Certify Class is denied as
moot.

Bosco Contractor is a construction company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jQAik6 at no extra charge.[CC]



BRIAN JOHNSON: Altomare Sues Over Ancestral Supplements' False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER ALTOMARE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BRIAN JOHNSON a/k/a "LIVER KING," ANCESTRAL
SUPPLEMENTS, LLC, and THE FITTEST EVER LLC,, Case No. 161116/2022
(Court, Dec. 28, 2022) arises from alleged misleading marketing and
advertising scheme of Ancestral Supplements designed by the
Defendants -- and deployed by the Defendant Live King -- to deceive
vulnerable and health-conscious customers.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant fashioned a regimented
lifestyle referred to as the Nine Ancestral Tenets which he then
convinced consumers, whom he eventually referred to as "Primals,"
to adopt and maintain, most notably, the second Ancestral Tenant
which persuaded consumers to follow an ancestral diet by eating
ground organs including liver, spleen, pancreas, heart, and kidney
and raw bull testicles, raw sweet bread, or raw heart.

According to the complaint, Liver King, who consistently presented
himself shirtless in an effort to showcase his muscular physique,
portrayed himself as the epitome of health, and someone who simply
encouraged consumers to adopt his proclaimed "Ancestral Tenets,"
however, in reality this was all part of Defendants' marketing and
advertising scheme.

On or around 28, 2022, Derek, a fitness journalist, published a
documentary video that revealed email correspondence, dating back
to June 2021, between Defendant Liver King and his former
short-term coach, bodybuilder and fitness guru "Vigorous Steve"
wherein Liver King identified himself as the face of several
supplement brands, including Defendant Ancestral Supplements, and
described in detail his soon-to-be-launched marketing and
advertising scheme. Within said email correspondence, the Defendant
Liver King mentioned his goal of gaining "1MM followers by March
2022,” to generate more revenue for Defenders' numerous
supplement companies. The email correspondence revealed that
Defendant Liver King had been experimenting with various steroids
in furtherance of Defendants' marketing and advertising scheme, and
was requesting a consultation with Vigorous Steve to discuss
steroid or other performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) dosages in an
effort to maximize his physical appearance prior to launching
Defendants' social media campaign, says the suit.

Accordingly, this action is brought pursuant to Article 9 of the
New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, on behalf of Plaintiff
Altomare, and all others New York State residents, as well as
non-resident consumers who purchased the Products at any store
within New York or ordered the same for delivery into New York,
within the statute of limitations, to hold Defendants Liver King,
Ancestral Supplements and The Fittest, liable for their fraudulent
and misleading business practices, including their deceptive
marketing, advertising, branding, distribution, and sale of the
Defendants' Products in New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse C. Cotter, Esq.
          COTTER LAW GROUP
          272 Plandome Road
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (516) 303-0487

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Feb. 10 Class Cert Oral Argument Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sansone, et al., v.
Charter Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01880 (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Q. Hayes entered an order setting
motion and R&R deadlines/hearings.

   -- The Court will hear oral argument        Feb. 10, 2023
      on the parties' Class Certification
      Motions:

The nature of suit states Labor -- Other Labor Litigation.

Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass
media company with services branded as Spectrum.[CC]

CIRCLE K STORES: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Pettersen
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circle K Stores Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM D. PETTERSEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CIRCLE K STORES, INC.,
an Arizona Corporation, and DOES 1-10, Case No.
3:21-cv-00237-RBM-BGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

The lawsuit which was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Diego on February 8, 2021,
arises from the Defendant's alleged false or misleading advertising
of its cigarettes in violation of the California False Advertising
Law and unfair competition within the meaning of the California
Business & Professions Code.

On May 18, 2022, the Plaintiff William D. Pettersen filed a motion
to certify class and for appointment of class counsel pursuant to
Federal Rule of Procedure 23.

On July 25, 2022, Circle filed its opposition to Plaintiff's motion
for class certification. On August 8, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a
reply in support of his motion.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 6, 2022, the Hon.
Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion and certified the class defined as:

   "All persons in California who purchased a carton of
    cigarettes from a Circle K store in California and did not
    receive an advertised multi-pack discount from December 4,
    2016 to the present."

The Court concluded that Plaintiff William D. Pettersen meets the
requirements of class representative for this class. The Court also
concluded that Lawrence Timothy Fisher and Sean L. Litteral of
Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Stephen B. Morris of The Law Offices of
Stephen B. Morris, and Peggy J. Reali of Reali Law, A.P.C. are
adequate counsel for this class.

The appellate case is captioned as William Pettersen v. Circle K
Stores Inc., Case No. 22-80139, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Dec. 8, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner CIRCLE K STORES INC. is represented by:

          Tyler Ryan Andrews, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 732-6500

Plaintiff-Respondent WILLIAM D. PETTERSEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, PA
          1990 N California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455

               - and -

          Stephen B. Morris, Esq.
          MORRIS AND ASSOCIATES
          444 West C Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-1300

DENVER SHERIFFS: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by Feb. 1,
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Denver Sheriffs
Department, Case No. 1:20-cv-01795 (D. Colo), the Hon. Judge John
L. Kane entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of
time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

  -- The defendants' response to the motion for class
     certification is due on or before February 1, 2023.

  -- The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, is due February 14, 2023.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.

The Denver Sheriff Department is a criminal justice agency based in
Denver, Colorado, United States.[CC]



DMG MORI: Class Action Settlement in Arnold Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN ARNOLD, et al., v.
DMG MORI USA, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-02373-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge James Donato entered an order granting the final approval of
the class action settlement:

   -- The single opt-out is ordered excluded from the
      settlement.

   -- Class counsel is awarded $450,000 in attorneys' fees to be
      paid from the attorneys' fees fund.

   -- Class counsel is ordered reimbursed $13,011.56 in
      litigation expenses to be paid from the class distribution
      fund.

   -- The settlement administrator is awarded additional costs
      of up to $13,500.

   -- The named class representative, Steven Arnold, is awarded
      a $1,500 incentive payment.

This is a consumer class action alleging that defendant DMG Mori
USA accessed the consumer reports of prospective employees using an
authorization form that violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA).

After more than three years of litigation, which included class
certification and summary judgment for plaintiffs on DMG's
liability under the FCRA, the parties signed a settlement
agreement in July 2021. The Court approved the proposed class
settlement on a preliminary basis after holding a hearing.

The conditionally certified settlement class consists of:

    "all persons residing in the United States for whom DMG
    procured or caused to be procured a customer report for
    employment purposes on or after April 19, 2016, to May 21,
    2021."

The Court appointed named plaintiff Steven Arnold as class
representative, and Aashish Desai and Adrianne De Castro of Desai
Law Firm, P.C., as class counsel.

DMG MORI manufactures high-precision machine tools.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WG8yx7 at no extra charge.[CC]

DURHAM FOODS: Underpays Kitchen Employees, Thompson Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JERAMIE THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DURHAM FOODS, INC. d/b/a ZAXBY'S
RESTAURANTS, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01087 (M.D.N.C., December
14, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action against the
Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid and
full time kitchen employee.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant employed unlawful
practices that violated the FLSA. This include failing to
compensate him and other similarly situated kitchen employees at
the legally mandated overtime rate of pay for the time they spent
performing “off the clock” work; and “editing out” their
compensable overtime from its keeping system within weekly pay
periods. The Defendant also required them to work through unpaid
30-minute meal break without pay.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated kitchen
employees, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs,
expenses, and disbursements relating to this action together with
reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other relief as the
Court deems just and proper.

Durham Foods, Inc. d/b/a Zaxby's Restaurants owns and operates
several Zaxby's franchised restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

EMBRY-RIDDLE: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lopez v. Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-01580 (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 an
Amended Case Management Report to be filed within seven days from
the date of this Order:

   -- 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 suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University is a private university
focused on aviation and aerospace programs.[CC]

GIESEN MANAGEMENT: Must Submit Joint Status Report by Feb. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reagh v. Giesen Management
Associates, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00266 (N.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Sara Lioi entered an order on motion to extend deadlines
as follows:

On February 10, 2023, the parties shall submit a joint status
report advising the Court as to the status of mediation and/or the
progress of settlement negotiations, as well as proposed dates for
conditional/class certification deadlines and oppositions thereto,
discovery cutoff (expert and nonexpert), dispositive motions,
status hearing(s), final pre-trial conference, and trial.

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

GINA RAIMONDO: Wins Summary Judgment v. Murphy
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAUREEN MURPHY
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals; JOHN HUDDLESTON, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals, v. GINA RAIMONDO. et al, Case
No. 3:22-cv-05377-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G.
Estudillo entered an order granting the defendants' motion for
summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary
judgment:

   -- The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as
      Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe.

   -- The Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment is
      denied.

   -- The Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without prejudice.

   -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied
      as moot.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of a
specific threat the Defendants will prosecute Plaintiffs for
failure to complete the ACS. The Defendants, by contrast, have
presented uncontroverted evidence of a long history of
non-prosecution under the statute. This evidence indicates there is
no imminent threat of prosecution and Plaintiffs' fear of such an
outcome is not reasonable. As such, the Court finds Plaintiffs'
dispute with Defendants is not justiciable."

As previously discussed, the Plaintiffs have not established they
have suffered an actual injury in fact and their pre-enforcement
challenge fails to meet the Thomas factors. The Plaintiffs thus ask
the Court to decide generally whether the Census Bureau has the
authority to compel responses to the ACS, which this Court may not
do, the Court adds.


Additionally, the Plaintiffs have not established they will suffer
significant hardship if the Court withholds a decision on their
claims. "The hardship analysis of our ripeness jurisprudence
dovetails, in part, with the constitutional consideration of
injury. Although the constitutional and 2 prudential considerations
are distinct, the absence of any real or imminent threat of
enforcement, particularly criminal enforcement, seriously
undermines any claim of hardship."

Ultimately, the Court finds Plaintiffs' claims too remote to
justify the exercise of jurisdiction. Mindful of our limited
jurisdiction and in an effort to avoid issuing an unconstitutional
advisory opinion, the Court finds Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe
for resolution at this time and that Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment as a matter of law.

The Plaintiffs bring this suit challenging the constitutionality of
the Census Bureau's ability to compel Americans' responses to the
American Community Survey ("ACS").

The ACS "is a nationwide survey that collects and produces
information on social, economic, housing, and demographic
characteristics about our nation's population every year."

On May 24, 2022, Plaintiffs filed suit against Secretary of
Commerce Gina Raimondo,  the Department of Commerce, Director of
the Bureau of Census Robert Santos, and the Bureau of Census.

The Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and injunctive relief to
ensure they are not compelled to answer the ACS. They claim the
Census Bureau's actions are ultra vires, the statutes that
authorize the Census Bureau to conduct the ACS violate the
non-delegation doctrine, and that the ACS 23 speech in violation of
the First Amendment and invades the Plaintiffs' rights to privacy.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IjX4eu at no extra charge.[CC]


GOOGLE LLC: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Google Play Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Google LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court order dated
November 28, 2022 entered in In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust
Litigation (MDL No. 2981), Case No. 3:20-cv-05761-JD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Google erected
contractual and technological barriers that foreclose Android
users' ability to utilize app distribution platforms other than
Google Play Store. She contends that this ensures that the Google
Play Store accounts for nearly all the app downloads from app
stores on Android devices. Google, thus, maintains a monopoly over
the market for distributing mobile apps to Android users
(hereafter, the "Android App Distribution Market"), she adds.

According to the complaint, Google also enforces anticompetitive
restrictions against app developers. Specifically, Google
contractually prohibits app developers from offering an app through
the Google Play Store that is, in turn, used to download other
apps. Additionally, Google forces app developers to distribute
their apps through the Google Play Store to take advantage of
advertising channels controlled by Google, such as ad placements on
Google Search or YouTube that are specially optimized to advertise
mobile apps. Because Google also has a monopoly in Internet
searches, app developers have no choice but to acquiesce to
Google's anticompetitive restrictions on Google Play.

This action by consumer plaintiffs is one of several antitrust
cases about the Google Play Store. These cases have been
consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for centralized
proceedings before the District Court.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge James
Donato entered an order on November 28, 2022:

   1. certifying class under FRCP Rule 23(b)(3):

      "All persons in the following U.S. states and territories:
      Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine,
      Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wisconsin,
      Wyoming, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands,
      Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands who paid for an
      app through the Google Play Store or paid for in-app
      digital content (including subscriptions or ad-free
      versions of apps) through Google Play Billing on or after
      August 16, 2016, to the present;"

   2. appointing Plaintiffs Matthew Atkinson and Alex Iwamoto as
      representatives, and confirming interim class counsel as
      class counsel under Rule 23(g);

   3. directing the parties to jointly file by January 20, 2023,
      a proposed plan to give notice to the certified class and
      an opportunity to opt out.

The Court said, "Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is denied, as is
the requested exclusion of the testimony of Plaintiffs' expert for
certification, Dr. Hal J. Singer, under Federal Rule of Evidence
702."

The appellate case is captioned as Mary Carr, et al. v. Google LLC,
et al., Case No. 22-80140, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Dec. 10, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners GOOGLE LLC, GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED, GOOGLE
COMMERCE LIMITED, GOOGLE ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LIMITED, and GOOGLE
PAYMENT CORP. are represented by:

          Emily Curran-Huberty, Esq.
          Kyle W. Mach, Esq.
          Justin Paul Raphael, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 512-4052

               - and -

          Jessica Lynn Ellsworth, Esq.
          Neal Kumar Katyal, Esq.
          Danielle Desaulniers Stempel, Esq.
          Reedy Swanson, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US, LLP
          555 13th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600

               - and -

          Kuruvilla Olasa, Esq.
          Glenn D. Pomerantz, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
          350 S Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9530

               - and -

          Brian Christopher Rocca, Esq.
          Sujal Shah, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000

               - and -

          Richard S. Taffet, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6000    

               - and -

          Katherine Booth Wellington, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US, LLP
          125 High Street, Suite 2010
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 371-1000  

Plaintiffs-Respondents MARY CARR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIEVEAU, PACHIOS & HALLEY
          One City Center P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 4112
          Telephone: (207) 691-3000

               - and -

          Jameson R. Jones, Esq.
          Glen E. Summers, Esq.
          BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP
          1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200
          Denver, CO 80202

               - and -

          Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
          Carol O'Keefe, Esq.
          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 N 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1625
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
    
               - and -

          Ann Miller Ravel, Esq.
          MCMANIS FAULKNER
          50 W San Fernando Street, 10th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 279-8700

               - and -

          Marc A. Wallenstein, Esq.
          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 899-5063

               - and -

          David E. Azar, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          280 S Beverly Drive Suite Ph
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300

               - and -

          William A. Ladnier, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080   

               - and -

          Peggy Wedgworth, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          1 Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119

GOOGLE LLC: Hammerling Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE HAMMERLING, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting defendant's motion to dismiss their lawsuit entitled Marie
Hammerling, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Google, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-09004-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The case arises from Google's alleged monitoring, collection, and
misuse of the Plaintiffs' and Class members' sensitive personal
data without obtaining meaningful consent or providing adequate
disclosures as required by law.

The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint against
Google on Aug. 8, 2022. Their Amended Complaint asserts 10 causes
of action for: (1) common law intrusion upon seclusion; (2)
invasion of privacy; (3) fraud under both affirmative
misrepresentation and omission theories; (4) violation of
California's unfair competition law under the fraudulent, unfair,
and unlawful prongs; (5) violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act; (6) breach of contract; (7) breach of implied
contract; (8) unjust enrichment; (9) relief under the Declaratory
Judgment Act; and (10) relief under California's Invasion of
Privacy Act.

On Sept. 9, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint, which the Court granted through an
Order entered by Judge Charles R. Breyer on Dec. 1, 2022. The Court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice because they have
failed to cure the deficiencies in their initial complaint.

The appellate case is captioned Marie Hammerling, et al. v. Google,
LLC, Case No. 22-17024, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 30, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Marie Hammerling and Kay Jackson Mediation
Questionnaire was due on January 6, 2023;

   -- Transcript is due on February 28, 2023;

   -- Appellants Marie Hammerling and Kay Jackson opening brief is
due on April 10, 2023;

   -- Appellee Google, LLC answering brief is due on May 9, 2023;
and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants MARIE HAMMERLING, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Christian Levis, Esq.
            Margaret C. MacLean, Esq.
            LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC
            44 S. Broadway, Suite 1100
            White Plains, NY 10601
            Telephone: (914) 997-0500

                    - and -

            Willem Jonckheer, Esq.
            Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
            SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE, LLP
            2001 Union Street, Suite 200
            San Francisco, CA 94123
            Telephone: (415) 788-4220

Defendant-Appellee GOOGLE, LLC is represented by:

            Benjamin W. Berkowitz, Esq.
            Thomas Gorman, Esq.
            Ian A. Kanig, Esq.
            KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS, LLP
            633 Battery Street
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 391-5400

GRANITE SERVICES: Rodriguez Seeks to Certify Field Employee Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, JR.,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND FIELDCORE SERVICES
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02689-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. Certifying a class defined as:

      "All employees who worked for Granite Services
      International, Inc. and/or FieldCore Services Solutions,
      LLC who were paid according to Defendants' "Retainer B
      Salary" pay plan in California at any time since September
      10, 2016, to the date this Court grants certification."

   2. Appointing Jose Luis Rodriguez, Jr., as Class
      Representative;

   3. Appointing C. Ryan Morgan, Esq., Andrew Frisch, Esq.,
      Michael Josephson, Esq., Andrew Dunlap, Esq., Richard
      Schreiber, Esq., and Richard (Rex) Burch, as Class
      Counsel;

   4. Compelling the Defendants to produce a complete and
      accurate employee list of all employees within the class
      definition;

   5. Approving the Plaintiffs' proposed form and method of
      Notice to the Class as fair, reasonable, adequate, and
      consistent with due process; and

   6. Any other relief that is just and proper.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are the Defendants'
field service employees who provided Defendants' technical field
services in California power plants. Defendants paid all Class
Members pursuant to their "Retainer B Salary" pay plan. Under the
Retainer B Salary plan, Defendants agreed to pay a so-called
"salary" plus straight time hourly rate for any hours worked over
40 in a week.

The Defendants (first as Granite, later rebranded as FieldCore)
provide field services and technical and support services for the
power generation and oil and gas industries. See
https://www.fieldcore.com/capabilities/ (last visited Nov. 29,
2022).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 2,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WIFsNx
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 16 th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
                  afrisch@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (710) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

GRAYBUG VISION: Bushansky Balks at Merger Deal With CalciMedica
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY v. GRAYBUG VISION, INC., ERIC BJERKHOLT, FREDERIC
GUERARD, CHRISTINA ACKERMANN, JULIE EASTLAND, DIRK SAUER, and
CHRISTY SHAFFER, Case No. 3:22-cv-09131 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 28, 2022)
is a class action alleging that Defendants authorized the issuance
of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ,
and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, seeking to enjoin the
vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Graybug will
merge with CalciMedica, Inc. through Graybug's subsidiary Camaro
Merger Sub, Inc.

On November 21, 2022, Graybug and CalciMedica issued a joint press
release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of
CalciMedica common stock will be converted into the right to
receive 0.4073 shares of Graybug common stock. Following completion
of the merger, CalciMedica's equityholders are expected to own or
hold rights to acquire 71.4% of the combined company and Graybug's
equityholders are expected to own or hold rights to acquire 28.6%of
the combined company.

On December 14, 2022, Graybug filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary
Proxy Statement. The Proxy statement omits or misrepresents
material information concerning CalciMedica's financial projections
and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's
financial advisor Piper Sandler.

The Proxy Statement also fails to disclose the specific assumptions
underlying the financial projections, including the probability of
success of Auxora in acute pancreatitis and acute kidney injury,
the market for any approved product, the timing of approval and
operating expenses. Additionally, the Proxy Statement fails to
disclose the line items underlying EBITDA and Unlevered Free Cash
Flow, says the suit.

Mr. Bushansky is a continuous stockholder of Graybug.

Graybug is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focused on
the development of medicines for the treatment of diseases of the
retina and optic nerve.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISS LAW
          611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

GROW CARE: Faces Caban Class Suit Over Illegal Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILIO CABAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. GROW CARE, INC. D/B/A GROW THERAPY, Case No.
CACE-22-018925 (Fla. Cir., Dec. 28, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant sent multiple electronic communications to the Plaintiff
in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt, in
violation of Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

On December 23, 2022, the Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to the Plaintiff (First Communication). The First
Communication advised that:

    "You have an outstanding balance of $55 until this balance is
    paid, you will not be able to book additional appointments.
All
    your future appointments with Kiera Cordiano are cancelled for
    now. Why does this balance exist?  We were not able to charge
    your card $55 because either an invalid card or insufficient
    funds."

The First Communication was sent from billing@growtherapy.com and
delivered to the Plaintiff's personal e-mail address. The First
Communication was sent by the Defendant and received by the
Plaintiff at 5:1 AM in the Plaintiff's zone.

On December 23, 2022, the Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to the Plaintiff (Second Communication). The Second
Communication, which was a communication in connection with the
collection of the consumer debt, was received by the Plaintiff from
the Defendant at 5:02 AM in Plaintiff's zone.

Each of the Electronic Communications were sent to the Plaintiff
between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of the
Plaintiff in violation of the FCCPA, says the suit.

The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

INFUCARE RX: Court Accepts Response to Sharfman's Objections
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marc Irwin Sharfman, M.D.,
P.A. v. InfuCare Rx LLC, et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-00525 (M.D.
Fla.), the Court entered an endorsed order granting the Defendant's
Unopposed Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Regarding Defendant's
Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation Regarding Class Certification.

The Court accepts Defendant's Response as filed.

The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.

InfuCare is a data driven nationwide specialty infusion therapy
provider focused on treating patients with chronic conditions who
require comprehensive clinical management services.[CC]


JOHNSON MARK: Spence Files FDCPA Suit in D. Utah
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson Mark LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Danielle Spence, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Johnson Mark, LLC,
Midland Credit Management, Case No. 2:22-cv-00821-TS (D. Utah, Dec.
30, 2022).

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

Johnson Mark Law -- https://www.jmlaw.com/ -- are a law firm
engaged in the practice of civil litigation focusing on debt
collection and creditor rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett D. Cragun, Esq.
          CRAGUN & CRAGUN
          PO Box 160234
          Clearfield, UT 84016
          Phone: (801) 450-3267
          Email: brett@brettcragun.com


JP MORGAN: Musharbash Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rana Musharbash, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK; DOES 1 to
20, inclusive, Case No. FCS058837 was removed from the Superior
Court of California in and for the County of Solano, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
Dec. 30, 2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02320-DAD-KJN.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges twelve causes of action against
JPMC: failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; failure to
provide meal and rest periods; failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements; waiting time penalties; failure to pay overtime
wages; failure to reimburse business expenses; unfair competition
in violation of California Business and Professions Code; claim
under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA");
discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act ("FEHA"); harassment in violation of FEHA; failure to
take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment in violation of
FEHA; and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daryl S. Landy, Esq.
          Carrie A. Gonell, Esq
          Alexander L. Grodan, Esq
          Joseph A. Govea, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
          Phone: +1.714.830.0600
          Fax: +1.714.830.0700
          Email: daryl.landy@morganlewis.com
                 carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
                 alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com
                 joseph.govea@morganlewis.com


L'OCCITANE INC: Reyes Sues Over Unlawful Oversized Packaging
------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. L'OCCITANE INC., a New York corporation, and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00052096-CU-MT-CTL (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Dec. 29, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants' violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act ("CLRA"), the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and the False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), as a result of the Defendants' false,
unfair, deceptive, unlawful, and misleading practices of oversized
packaging.

The Defendant manufactures and sells a popular line of beauty
products throughout the United States (the "Products"). To increase
profits at the expense of consumers and fair competition, Defendant
deceptively sells the Products in oversized packaging that does not
reasonably inform consumers that they are more than half empty.
Defendant's slack-fill scam extends to all variations of its
Products sold in opaque containers. Defendant dupes unsuspecting
consumers across America to pay premium prices for empty space.

The Defendant markets the Products in a systematically misleading
manner by representing them as adequately filled when, in fact,
they contain an unlawful amount of empty space or "slack fill."
Defendant underfills the Products for no lawful reason. The front
of the Products' packaging does not include any information that
would reasonably apprise Plaintiff of the quantity of product
relative to the size of the container, such as a fill line.

The Defendant underfills the Products to save money (by not filling
the containers) and to deceive consumers into purchasing the
Products over its competitors' products. Defendant's slack-fill
scheme not only harms consumers, but it also harms its competitors
who have implemented labeling changes designed to alert consumers
to the true amount of product in each container, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's 6.9-ounce size Ultra Rich
Body Cream for Dry and Sensitive Skin for personal use in 2022.

The Defendant is the owner, manufacturer, and distributor of the
Products.[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
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


LANDS' END: Gomez Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Marissa Gomez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LANDS' END, INC., Case No.
2022CA-002849CAAXES was removed from the Circuit Court for the 6th
Judicial Circuit in and for Pasco County, Florida, to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Dec.
29, 2022, and assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02968-VMC-MRM.

The Plaintiff alleges that Lands' End violated the FTSA by sending
a marketing-related text message to her without her express written
consent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin R. Raslavich, Esq.
          KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
          2110 West Platt St.
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: (813) 422-7782
          Facsimile: (813) 422-778
          Email: ben@theKRfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian M. Ercole, Esq.
          Clay M. Carlton, Esq.
          Javier A. Roldan Cora, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131-3075
          Email: brian.ercole@morganlewis.com
                 clay.carlton@morganlewis.com
                 javier.roldancora@morganlewis.com


LIVE NATION: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc. The case is styled as Daysi Hernandez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10972-ALC
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2022).

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

Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. --
https://www.livenationentertainment.com/ -- is an American global
entertainment company and monopoly that was founded in 2010
following the merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


LULU'S MYRTLE BEACH: Burdick Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Katie Burdick, William Saunders, and Scott
Shiner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. LuLu's Myrtle Beach, LLC d/b/a Lucy Buffett's LuLu's; and d/b/a
LuLu's North Myrtle Beach, Lucy Buffett, individually, George
Martin, individually, Gerald Tipton, individually, Cheryl Coesens,
individually, Vanessa Owens, individually, Robin Hinton,
individually, Douglas "Todd" Goings, individually, and Tonya
Clayton, individually, Case No. 2021-CP-26-07846 was removed from
the Court of Common Pleas of Horry County, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 3,
2023, and assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-04722-JD.

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants illegally deducted amounts
from the wages of the Plaintiffs and putative class members without
proper authorization, that Plaintiffs and putative class members
were paid less than minimum wage, that the Plaintiffs and putative
class members were not properly paid for overtime wages, that the
Plaintiffs and putative class members were improperly charged for
T-shirts and aprons, that the Tip Pool in which the Plaintiffs and
putative class members were required to participate was not proper
because employees who did not customarily and regularly receive
tips were participants in the Tip Pool, and that Defendants are not
entitled to Tip Credit because the Plaintiffs and other putative
class member were required to participate in deep cleaning, minimum
wage provisions, overtime provisions, tip pooling provisions and
tip credit provisions are all governed by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Phillip E. Reeves, Esq.
          Deborah Casey Brown, Esq.
          GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A.
          Post Office Box 10589
          Greenville, SC 29603
          Phone: (864) 271-9580
          Email: preeves@gwblawfirm.com
                 dbrown@gwblawfirm.com


M.A.'S SOUL FOOD: Ascencion Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Martinez Ascencion, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. M.A.'S SOUL FOOD PLUS LLC, dba MA'S FISH AND
CHIPS, M.A.'S FISH & CHIPS PLUS LLC dba MA'S FISH AND CHIPS, and
GERALD P. HOLMAN, individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-07986 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 30, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law alleging that he is entitled to recover
from the Defendants: unpaid wages and minimum wages; unpaid
overtime compensation; unpaid "spread of hours" premiums for each
day he worked a spread in excess of 10 hours; liquidated damages;
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Plaintiff typically worked a total between 65 to 75, or more,
hours per week. The Plaintiff was paid "straight time" at his
assigned rate of pay; he was not given overtime premium pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 each week. The Plaintiff was not given
an extra hour of pay at the New York State minimum rate, when he
worked a spread in excess of 10 hours, which occurred 6 days per
week. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their
business with a policy of not paying wages to Plaintiff for all
hours worked. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their
business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff the FLSA overtime
rate (of time and one-half), or the New York State overtime rate
(of time and one-half), for all hours worked in excess of 40 each
week, in violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the
supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor
Regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in Kings County, New
York, to work as a food preparer and general helper.

The Defendants operate fast food restaurants known as "Ma's Fish
and Chips."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MACYS WEST: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Diaz Suit to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MACYS WEST STORES, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order
granting its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled
Yuriria Diaz, Plaintiff, v. Macys West Stores, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 8:19-cv-00303-PSG-MAA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brought the complaint against the Defendant for failure to provide
accurate wage statements in violation of the California Labor
Code.

On Feb. 14, 2019, the Defendant removed the case from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

On Oct. 21, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Philip S. Gutierrez on Nov. 23, 2022. The Plaintiff's motion
to stay was denied as moot. Judge Gutierrez further ruled that all
of Plaintiffs PAGA claims, individual and representative, are
compelled to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration
agreement. "This order closes the case as there are no remaining
claims before the Court," Judge Gutierrez added.

The appellate case is captioned Yuriria Diaz v. Macys West Stores,
Inc., Case No. 22-56209, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 27, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Macys West Stores, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was
due on January 3, 2023;

   -- Appellant Macys West Stores, Inc. opening brief is due on
February 27, 2023;

   -- Appellee Yuriria Diaz answering brief is due on March 27,
2023; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee YURIRIA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Armond Marced Jackson, Esq.
            JACKSON LAW, APC
            2 Venture Plaza, Suite 240
            Irvine, CA 92618
            Telephone: (949) 281-6857

Defendant-Appellant MACYS WEST STORES, INC. is represented by:

            Pejmon Dustin Bodaghi, Esq.
            Fermin H. Llaguno, Esq.
            LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
            18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
            Irvine, CA 92612
            Telephone: (949) 705-3000

MARCUS MYERS: Thibodeaux Loses Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
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 Hon.
Judge David C. Joseph entered an order:

   1. denying Thibodeaux's motion to certify class;

   2. denying Thibodeaux's motion to appoint counsel; and

   3. denying Thibodeaux's motion for leave to file an a mended
      complaint.

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


MASA SUSHI: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum & OT Wages, Chen Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUJIE CHEN, CHENLI LIN, XIA LIN, QING CHEN, and BAOZHU WEI,
individually and on their own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees, v. MASA SUSHI HIBACHI AND BAR PA LLC
d/b/a MASA SUSHI HIBACHI AND BAR, ZHENGGUAN CHI and FANNY GUNAWAN,
Case No. 2:22-cv-05206 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 28, 2022) seeks to recover
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unlawful retained tips,
liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs, and damages owed to Plaintiffs and all
similarly situated employees of Defendants, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Pennsylvania
common law.

The Plaintiffs contend that they worked more than 40 hours per week
but were not properly compensated for their overtime hours during
their employment with the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendants failed to properly
inform tipped employees about the the Defendants' policy of taking
a tip credit against the Defendants' minimum wage obligations to
tipped employees, and the Defendants required tipped employees to
turn over a large percentage of their tips to Defendants and
non-tipped employees.

Plaintiffs LUJIE CHEN, CHENLI LIN, and XIA LIN were employed by the
Defendants as servers at Defendants' Restaurant. Plaintiff QING
CHEN was employed as a sushi chef at Defendants' Restaurant while
Plaintiff BAOZHU WEI was employed as a delivery packer and kitchen
helper.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Ave. Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com

MELDA COMEDY: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Melda Comedy, LLC.
The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Melda Comedy, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00002 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 1, 2023).

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

MELDA COMEDY LLC is an entity operating in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEMORIAL HEALTH: Moore Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Laura Moore, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Memorial Health Services, Case No.
22STCV35388 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec.
30, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-09468 to the
proceeding.

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

Memorial Health -- https://memorial.health/ -- is a leading
healthcare organization in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Teresa C. Chow, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Phone: (310) 820-8800
          Fax: (310) 820-8859
          Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com


META PLATFORMS: C.C. Suit Transferred in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as C.C., individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons v. Meta Platforms, Inc. formerly known as:
Facebook, Inc., Novant Health, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00970 was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on Dec. 30, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-09199-JCS to the
proceeding.

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

Meta Platforms, Inc. -- https://investor.fb.com/home/default.aspx
-- doing business as Meta and formerly named Facebook, Inc., and
TheFacebook, Inc., is an American multinational technology
conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gabriel G. Snyder, Esq.
          Janet Ward Black, Esq.
          WARD BLACK LAW
          208 W. Wendover Ave.
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Phone: (336) 510-2152
          Fax: (336) 510-2169
          Email: gsnyder@wardblacklaw.com
                 jwblack@wardblacklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166-0193
          Phone: (212) 351-4000
          Email: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Martens, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 663-6921
          Email: matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Trenton James Van Oss, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 887-3716
          Email: tvanoss@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Jennifer K. Van Zant, Esq.
          Jim W. Phillips, Jr.
          BROOKS PIERCE MCLENDON HUMPHREY LEONARD
          P.O. BOX 26000
          230 N. ELM ST., STE 2000
          Greensboro, NC 27420
          Phone: (336) 373-8850
          Email: jvanzant@brookspierce.com
                 jphillips@brookspierce.com

               - and -

          David Balser, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          1180 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1700
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 572-5109
          Email: dbalser@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Marisa Maleck, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 626-9117
          Email: mmaleck@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Griest, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          1180 Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 572-2824
          Email: rgriest@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Steven Wilson Quick, Esq.
          BROOKS PIERCE MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP
          POB 1800
          Raleigh, NC 27602
          Phone: (919) 839-0300
          Email: wquick@brookspierce.com


META PLATFORMS: Calderon Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
-------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Calderon and Danielle Calderon, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No.
5:22-cv-09149-VKD (N.D. Cal., Dec. 29, 2022), is brought against
the Defendant for wiretapping electronic communications on major
on-line tax filing websites offered by H&R Block, TaxAct, and
TaxSlayer.

As a result of this wiretapping, U.S consumers have been
transmitting their sensitive financial information to Meta when
they file their taxes online. This information has included things
like income, refund amounts, filing status, the names of
dependents, and scholarship information.

The device that made this wiretapping possible is Meta's ubiquitous
tracking pixel, which is embedded in the JavaScript of online tax
preparation websites, and which is part of a larger set of free
"business tools" that Meta offers to website owners. This pixel
gathers information from website visitors even if they do not have
a Meta account. Disclosing tax-return information without consent
is a crime.  Aiding and abetting the unlawful disclosure of
tax-return information is a crime. Inspecting unlawfully obtained
tax-return information is a crime.

This action is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and a putative class
of all people in the United States who used the online tax
preparation providers H&R Block, TaxAct, or TaxSlayer while those
websites had the Meta pixel installed on them. This action also
seeks to certify a putative subclass of Californians who used the
same websites. The complaint alleges violations of state and
federal wiretapping laws, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs used Tax Slayer's website to file their taxes
online.

Meta operates Facebook.com, and is the world's largest social media
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: jsmith@bursor.com



META PLATFORMS: Naugle Suit Transferred in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Kim Naugle, Afrika Williams, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Meta Platforms
Inc., Duke University Health Systems, Inc., WakeMed, Case No.
1:22-cv-00727 was transferred from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 30,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-09200-AGT to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Meta Platforms, Inc. -- https://investor.fb.com/home/default.aspx
-- doing business as Meta and formerly named Facebook, Inc., and
TheFacebook, Inc., is an American multinational technology
conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Maureen Kane Berg, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Email: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
                 mkberg@locklaw.com

               - and -

          James Harrell, Esq.
          CR LEGAL TEAM, LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Phone: (366) 333-9899
          Email: JRHarrell@crlegalteam.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166-0193
          Phone: (212) 351-2375
          Email: LGoldman@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Martens, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 663-6921
          Email: matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Trenton James Van Oss, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          2543 13th St NW #2
          Washington, DC 20009
          Phone: (202) 887-3716
          Email: tvanoss@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Mark E. Anderson, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          501 Fayetteville Street, Suite 500
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Phone: (919) 755-6678
          Fax: (919) 755-6581
          Email: manderson@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Anne Scully, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave., Ste 1100
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 861-1698
          Fax: (202) 861-1783
          Email: escully@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER HOSTETLER, LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 764-4013
          Email: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew Patrick Mcguire, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          555 Fayetteville St., Ste 600
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Phone: (919) 862-2279
          Fax: (919) 862-2579
          Email: matt.mcguire@alston.com


MICHAELS STORES: Solis Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Solis, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Michaels Stores Procurement Company,
Inc., Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV35835 was removed
from the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec.
16, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-09133-RGK-MAR to
the proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt.
Relations.

Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc., more commonly known as
Michaels -- https://www.michaels.com/ -- is one of North America's
largest providers of arts, crafts, framing, floral and wall décor,
and merchandise for makers and do-it-yourself home decorators.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael Alexander Sigall, Esq.
          Miguel Ramirez, Esq.
          Leo Q. Li, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Phone: (310) 277-7200
          Fax: (310) 201-5219
          Email: msigall@seyfarth.com
                 mramirez@seyfarth.com
                 lli@seyfarth.com

MUNCHKIN INC: Faces Kulp Suit Over Defective Sturdy Potty Seats
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Kulp and Christina Kulp, and Veronica Rodriguez, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Munchkin, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-09381-JAK-E (C.D. Cal., Dec. 28,
2022) alleges that Defendant's Sturdy Potty Seat is dangerously
defective.

The Sturdy Potty Seats have a high front lip intended to serve as a
"pee guard" to stop urine from splattering outside of the toilet.

The Plaintiffs contend that due to the height and shape of the pee
guard, its positioning at the front of the seat, and the hard
plastic it is made of, the Sturdy Potty Seat can injure children
when they attempt to climb off of the toilet.

Plaintiffs Bryan and Christina Kulp purchased the Sturdy Potty Seat
for their 3-year-old son to use while potty training. The second
time their son used it, his genitals became stuck in the pee guard
when he was getting up from the toilet. This resulted in a
traumatic injury and a trip to the emergency room.

Plaintiff Veronica Rodriguez also purchased the Sturdy Potty Seat
to potty train her young daughter. When her young daughter
attempted to climb off of the seat, she hit and scraped her pelvic
area on the hard lip of the pee guard, causing injury.

The Defendant expressly warrants that its products are safe and fit
for use by children. The Defendant markets the product with photos
of young children using the seat successfully. This is an
affirmation of fact about the seats (i.e., a representation that
the seats will be safe for use by children to go to the bathroom)
and a promise relating to the goods. The Plaintiffs provided
Defendant with notice of this breach of warranty, by mailing notice
letters to Defendant's headquarters. Plaintiffs Bryan and Christina
Kulp sent a notice letter on October 17, 2022. Plaintiff Veronica
Rodriguez sent a notice 7 letter on December 8, 2022, says the
suit.

The Plaintiffs and class members were allegedly injured as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant's breach, and this breach was a
substantial factor in causing harm, because

   (a) they would not have purchased the Sturdy Potty Seat if they
       had known that the product was unsafe for children, or

   (b) they overpaid for the product because the seat is sold at a
       price premium due to the warranty of safety.

The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to force Defendant to recall its
unreasonably dangerous products and issue full refunds to parents
who purchased them.

Munchkin makes, distributes, sells, and markets the Sturdy Potty
Seat.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Simon Franzini, Esq.
          Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
          Grace Bennett
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 656-7066
          Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
          E-mail: simon@dovel.com
                  jonas@dovel.com
                  grace@dovel.com

                - and -

          Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
          Edward S. Goldis, Esq.
          Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
          FELDMAN SHEPHERD
          WOHLGELERNTER TANNER
          WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-8300
          Facsimile: (215) 567-8333
          E-mail: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
                  egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com
                  zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com

NEW YORK: EMS Officers Union Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO,
et al., filed an appeal from the District Court Opinion and Order
dated November 22, 2022 entered in the lawsuit entitled LOCAL 3621,
EMS OFFICERS UNION, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, individually and on
behalf of its members, RENAE MASCOL, and LUIS RODRIGUEZ, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of all other similarly-situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW
YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-4476 (LJL), in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Representative Plaintiffs Renae Mascol and Luis Rodriguez, together
with Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, bring
this putative class action for discrimination based on certain
protected characteristics, including race, sex, and/or gender,
against the City of New York, the New York City Fire Department
("FDNY"), the Department of Citywide Administrative Services
("DCAS") and John and Jane Does Nos. 1 to 20. The complaint asserts
that the promotional process for Emergency Medical Services ("EMS")
officers to certain leadership positions has resulted in disparate
and discriminatory promotional practices in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), New York State Human
Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"),
as well as 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 5, 2022, Judge
Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.


Having reviewed the parties' statistical analyses and the pertinent
anecdotal evidence, Judge Liman held that the Plaintiffs have not
offered significant proof of a pattern or practice of unlawful
discrimination. He found that (i) the Plaintiffs have failed to
identify a specific employment process and to draw any causal
connection between that employment process and any disparities;
(ii) the Plaintiffs' evidence to support their classwide claims of
disparate treatment based on race, sex, and gender discrimination
is inadequate; (iii) the Plaintiffs offer no statistical evidence
in support of their disparate treatment claim regarding Non-Full
Duty Status Officers; and (iv) the primary evidence in favor of the
Plaintiffs' claim appears to come from the anecdotal evidence of
their declarants.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs have not met  Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a)'s commonality requirement, and their proposed
classes cannot be certified, ruled the court. Accordingly, their
motion for class certification was denied.

The appellate case is captioned as Local 3621, EMS Officers Union,
DC-37, AFSCME, AFL v. City of New York, Case No. 22-3099, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on
Dec. 7, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37,
AFSCME, AFL-CIO; Renae Mascol; and Luis Rodriguez, individually and
on behalf of its members, are represented by:

          Yetta Kurland, Esq.
          THE KURLAND GROUP
          85 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 253-6911

Defendants-Respondents City of New York; New York City Fire
Department; Department of Citywide Administrative Services; and
John and Jane Does # 1-20, the identity of such persons being
unknown to Plaintiffs but intended to describe those persons
responsible for the promotional policies of the City of New York,
are represented by:

          Sylvia Hinds-Radix, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-0800

NIGHTFOOD INC: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Mejia Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE MEJIA, v. NIGHTFOOD,
INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-04570-ALC-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Sarah Netburn entered a civil case management plan & scheduling
order as follows:

  -- The parties may move to amend the pleadings or join
     additional parties until Friday, January 27, 2023.

  -- Any motion to amend filed after that date must satisfy the
     good cause standard of Rule 16(b)(4).

  -- Discovery. All fact discovery shall be completed by Monday,
     May 1, 2023. Disclosure of expert evidence as required by
     Rule 26(a)(2)(A), (B) or (C), including the identities and
     reports of experts, if any, shall be made by Monday, May
     22, 2023.

  -- The disclosure of expert evidence intended by a party
     solely to contradict or rebut expert evidence on the same
     subject matter disclosed by the opposing party shall be
     made by Monday, June 5, 2023.

  -- All expert discovery shall be completed by Thursday, June
     15, 2023.

  -- A joint letter informing the Court about the status of
     discovery shall be filed with the Court by Tuesday,
     February 28, 2023.

Nightfood is a nighttime snack company that produces and
distributes ice creams.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ccoyi3 at no extra charge.[CC]


NOBLR RECIPROCAL: Greenstein Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GREENSTEIN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled
Michael Greenstein, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Noblr Reciprocal
Exchange, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-04537-JSW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action suit against the Defendant
for its failure to protect their personal information following a
data breach. The Plaintiffs and Class members file the following
causes of action: (1) violations of the Drivers' Privacy Protection
Act ("DPPA"), 18 U.S.C. section 2724; (2) negligence; (3) violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business &
Professions Code section 17200, et seq. ("UCL"); and (4)
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On Sept. 7, 2021, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
complaint for lack of jurisdiction, which the Court granted through
an Order entered by Judge Jeffrey S. White on Feb. 15, 2022.

On March 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

On Apr. 15, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction,
which the Court also granted through an Order entered by Judge
White on Dec. 5, 2022. The Court determined that the Plaintiffs
have suffered no tangible, monetary, or property loss. Further, the
Court held that in the absence of an imminent risk of harm, the
Plaintiffs could not rely on costs incurred in monitoring their
credit to establish standing. The Court also found that the
Plaintiffs could not show a nexus between the alleged harm flowing
from the delayed notification and Noblr's actions, and so the
Plaintiffs had failed to adequately allege causation. Finally, the
Court determined that the Plaintiffs' alleged harm would not be
redressed by a favorable decision.

The appellate case is captioned Michael Greenstein, et al. v. Noblr
Reciprocal Exchange, Case No. 22-17023, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 30, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Sinkwan Au, Michael Greenstein and Cynthia Nelson
Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 6, 2023;

   -- Appellants Sinkwan Au, Michael Greenstein and Cynthia Nelson
opening brief is due on March 2, 2023;

   -- Appellee Noblr Reciprocal Exchange answering brief is due on
April 3, 2023; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL GREENSTEIN, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
            David S. Casey, II, Esq.
            CASEY, GERRY, SCHENK, FRANCAVILLA, BLATT & PENFIELD,
LLP
            110 Laurel Street
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 238-1811

Defendant-Appellee NOBLR RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE is represented by:

            Ian Shelton, Esq.
            EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
            500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1750
            Sacramento, CA 95814
            Telephone: (916) 241-0500

NORTH MISSISSIPPI HEALTH: Woods File Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STANLEY WOOD and CHASTITY
WOOD, Individually, and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated
Persons v. NORTH MISSISSIPPI HEALTH SERVICES, INC. (NMHC), ET AL.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00042-NBB-RP (N.D. Miss.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed class:

      "All patients with generic commercial insurance who made a
      payment to the Providers or their debt collectors after
      receiving a balance bill;"

      The class period includes patients who made such a payment
      within three years prior to the commencement of this
      action on February 26, 2020;

   2. appointing Chastity Wood as the representative of the
      class;

   3. appointing Woods' attorneys as class counsel; and

   4. directing that notice be issued.

The Plaintiffs request any further relief the Court may find
warranted in the premises.

Central to the Woods' claims is the allegation that NMHC and North
Mississippi Clinics, LLC are engaged in a practice of collecting
unauthorized amounts from out-of-network patients.

The unauthorized collections occur after the Providers send
"balance bills" to out-of-network patients for the difference
between what their plans have agreed to pay and the patients'
cost-sharing responsibilities and the full amount charged by the
Providers for their services.

North Mississippi Health Services, Inc. ("NMHS"), NMMC, NMC and
Tupelo Service Finance, Inc. admit that they have, for years, been
engaged in a practice of collecting balance bills from all patients
with "generic commercial insurance" as a means of "cost shifting."

According to Hospital Defendants, any third-party payor that does
not have a contract with NMHS is a generic commercial insurance
plan, regardless of whether the plan is governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") or not.

NMHS is the parent company of a diversified regional health care
organization, which serves 24 counties in North Mississippi and
Northwest Alabama from headquarters in Tupelo, Mississippi. NMHS
offers management services to its affiliated companies.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          H. Scot Spragins, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Tucker, Jr., Esq.
          HICKMAN, GOZA & SPRAGINS, PLLC
          P.O. Drawer 668
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 234-4000
          Facsimile: (662) 234-2000
          E-mail: sspragins@hickmanlaw.com
                  ltucker@hickmanlaw.com

NUTRA BULK: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nutra Bulk, Inc. The
case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Nutra Bulk, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00011-GLS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Jan. 1, 2023).

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

NutraBulk -- https://nutrabulk.com/ -- sells bulk supplements
online to customers worldwide so that we can provide large
discounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


OMNI HOTELS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omni Hotels
Management Corporation. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Omni Hotels
Management Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00005 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 1,
2023).

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

Omni Hotels Management Corporation -- https://www.omnihotels.com/
-- operates hotels and resorts. The Company offers personalized
services, benefits, rewards to guests, and sensational kids
programs to individuals and families.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ONE STOP: Fails to Pay Store Assistants' OT Wages, Bouchouk Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ABDELLAH BOUCHOUK, similarly situated individuals v. ONE STOP
BEAUTY SUPPLY, INC. d/b/a Happy Family Food Market, RASHID MOHAMED
EL GHOUL and SALEM QARALEH, Case No. 0:22-cv-62430 (S.D. Fla., Dec.
28, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cashier/store assistant from June
15, 2022 to October 30, 2022, working 20 compensable weeks in
total. The alleged unpaid overtime wages accumulated from the date
of hire and/or from three years preceding the date of the filing of
this complaint. The Corporate Defendant did not properly compensate
the Plaintiff for hours that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per
week, the Plaintiff says.

One Stop Beauty Supply is a shop and hair salon offering beauty
needs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: julisse@saenzanderson.com
                  msaenz@saenzanderson.com

PAPA JOHN'S: Bazemore Appeals Arbitration, Case Dismissal Rulings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW BAZEMORE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the
lawsuit entitled Andrew Bazemore, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Papa John's
U.S.A., Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00311, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought this complaint against the Defendants for their alleged
failure to adequately reimburse automobile expenses in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act.

On Aug. 11, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings on Dec. 1, 2022.

Judge Jennings found that Bazemore has failed to submit any
additional evidence to support his claims. Bazemore's final
assertion that his manager may have signed the Arbitration
Agreement on his behalf is speculation without additional evidence.
Mere speculation is not enough to create an issue of fact. Because
Bazemore has not created a material issue of fact, the Plaintiffs
are not entitled to discovery related to formation of the
Agreement. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Deadline to
Respond to Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Permit
Arbitration-Related Discovery is denied, ruled the Court.

As discussed, the Defendants met their initial burden by producing
an affidavit declaring that Bazemore signed the Agreement by an
electronic signature. The Court routinely found that electronic
acknowledgements of arbitration agreements manifest assent. Based
on Bazemore's electronic signature, Judge Jennings determined that
Bazemore entered into the Agreement. Bazemore has not articulated
another defense that would prevent enforcement of the Agreement.
Because the Plaintiffs' claims must be submitted to arbitration
under the Agreement, the Court must dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Complaint. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Dismiss the Complaint is granted.

The appellate case is captioned Andrew Bazemore, et al. v. Papa
John's U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 22-6133, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on December 30, 2022.
[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ANDREW BAZEMORE, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            David W. Garrison, Esq.
            BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON
            414 Union Street, Suite 900
            Nashville, TN 37219
            Telephone: (615) 244-2202

Defendants-Appellees PAPA JOHN'S U.S.A., INC., et al. are
represented by:

            Donald Lee Miller, II, Esq.
            QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER
            9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 400
            Louisville, KY 40222
            Telephone: (502) 423-6390

PAPA JOHN'S: Perry Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Perry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a "Papa John's,"
and ANN B. GUGINO, Case No. 3:22-cv-00681-DJH (W.D. Ky., Dec. 29,
2022), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to
recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to himself and
similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its
Papa John's stores.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages –
unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages), says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from February 2020 to
July 2020 as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Papa John's store
located in Douglasville, Georgia.

The Defendants operate numerous Papa John's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          515 Park Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Phone (502) 636-4333
          Email: davids@bsjfirm.com


PEABODY ENERGY: OPERF Bid to Certify Class Nixed w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action re Peabody Energy Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08024-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered an order
denying without prejudice the Lead Plaintiff Oregon Public
Employees Retirement Fund's proposed class in view of the
preliminary approval of Settlement Class:

   "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
   acquired the publicly traded common stock of Peabody Energy
   Corporation during the period from September 22, 2018 through
   September 28, 2018, inclusive (the Class Period), and were
   damaged thereby."

   Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) members if
   the immediate family of any Defendant who is an individual;
   (iii) any person who has an officer or director of Peabody
   during the Class Period; (iv) any firm, trust, corporation,
   or other entity in which any Defendant has or had a
   controlling interest; (v) Peabody's employee retirement and
   benefit plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries, to
   the extent they made purchases through such plan(s); and (vi)
   the legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-
   interest, or assigns of any such excluded person.

OPERF is managed by the Oregon State Treasury under the direction
of the Oregon Investment Council.

Peabody Energy is a coal mining and energy company headquartered in
St. Louis, Missouri. Its primary business consists of the mining,
sale, and distribution of coal, which is purchased for use in
electricity generation and steelmaking.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZnA0BI at no extra charge.[CC]

PELICAN INVESTMENT: Auto Knight Appeals Dismiss Bid Ruling in Webb
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants AUTO KNIGHT MOTOR CLUB, INC., et al., filed an appeal
from court rulings 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 entered an order denying 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. Auto Knight
Motor Club, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-56153, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 7, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Auto Knight Motor Club, Inc. Mediation
Questionnaire was due on December 14, 2022;

   -- Appellant Auto Knight Motor Club, Inc. opening brief is due
on February 6, 2023;

   -- Appellees Edgar Garcia and Dean Webb answering brief is due
on March 8, 2023;

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

Defendant-Appellant AUTO KNIGHT MOTOR CLUB, INC., a California
Corporation, is represented by:

            Raymond O. Aghaian, Esq.
            MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
            300 South Grand Avenue, 14th Floor
            Los Angeles, CA 90071-3124
            Telephone: (213) 688-1000

Plaintiffs-Appellees DEAN WEBB and EDGAR GARCIA 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

PELICAN INVESTMENT: Dealer Loyalty Appeals Ruling in Webb Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Dealer Loyalty Protection, Inc., et al., filed an appeal
from court rulings 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 entered an order denying 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. Dealer Loyalty
Protection, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-56169, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 12,
2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Richard Benevento and Dealer Loyalty Protection,
Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 19, 2022;

   -- Appellants Richard Benevento and Dealer Loyalty Protection,
Inc. opening brief is due on February 6, 2023;

   -- Appellees Edgar Garcia and Dean Webb answering brief is due
on March 8, 2023;

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

Defendants-Appellants DEALER LOYALTY PROTECTION, INC., a Wyoming
Corporation; and RICHARD BENEVENTO, an individual and Corporate
Agent, are represented by:

          Teri T. Pham, Esq.
          ENENSTEIN PHAM & GLASS
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 840
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 292-0262

Plaintiffs-Appellees DEAN WEBB and EDGAR GARCIA 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

PET KING BRANDS: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pet King Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Pet King Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-10971-PAE (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2022).

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

Pet King Brands, Inc. has been helping veterinarians care for their
patients for over twenty years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


PIERRE FABRE: Valenzuela Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated s. PIERRE FABRE USA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, d/b/a KLORANEUSA.COM, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00047487-CU-MT-CTL was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
Dec. 30, 2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-02079-L-MSB.

The Plaintiff and the putative class seek statutory damages for
each alleged violation of California Penal Code ("California
Invasion of Privacy Act" or "CIPA").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Garrett Llewellyn, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 284-3880
          Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
          Email: Garrett.llewellyn@btlaw.com


PRATT QUALITY: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Williams Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRATT (QUALITY CARTON), LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 7:22-cv-10577 (S.D.N.Y., December 14, 2022) brings this class
action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violation of
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a forklift operator,
since approximately June 2022 at the Defendant's Windsor location.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to timely
compensate him and other similarly situated manual laborers.
Instead of compensating them on a weekly basis, the Defendant paid
them on a bi-weekly basis.

The Plaintiff seeks damages as a result of the Defendant untimely
payment of wages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Pratt (Quality Carton), LLC is a licensed and DOT registered
trucking company running freight hauling business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Tel: (516) 873-9550

RAJA 786: Chowdhury Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMMED CHOWDHURY, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, and
JEAN PLAISIR and DARLENE SMITH, individually, v. RAJA 786 FOOD
INC., ZENAB FOOD INC., SARDAR PIZZA INC., ROCKAWAY 786 FOOD INC.,
PENNSYLVANIA 786 PIZZA INC., PITKIN AVE 786 PIZZA INC., and RAJA S.
ALI, Case No. 1:20-cv-04235-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. Granting final approval to the settlement reached by the
      parties in this action, as embodied in their Settlement
      Agreement And Release attached as Exhibit A to the
      Delson Declaration;

   2. Certifying the following settlement class under Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in connection with the
      settlement process:

      "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants
      Raja 786 Food Inc., Zenab Food Inc., Sardar Pizza Inc.,
      Rockaway 786 Food Inc., Pennsylvania 786 Pizza Inc. and
      Pitkin Ave 786 Pizza Inc., at any time from April 22, 2019
      to September 23, 2022 (the date of the Court's Order
      granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement);

   3. Approving an award of attorney's fees in the amount of
      $240,000, plus reimbursement of a further $5,000 of
      litigation expenses, to Granovsky & Sundaresh PLLC, Class
      Counsel in this matter;

   4. Entering judgment dismissing this action with prejudice as
      provided in the Proposed Order attached to the Delson
      Declaration as Exhibit I; and

   5. Providing such other and further relief as the Court may
      deem just and proper.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Rudolph Delson, Esq.
          Alexander Granovsky, Esq.
          GRANOVSKY & SUNDARESH PLLC
          48 Wall Street, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 524-6001
          E-mail: delson@g-s-law.com
                  ag@g-s-law.com


RHODE ISLAND: Liberty Class Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLENE LIBERTY; JOHN
DAPONTE; JOHN DAVIS; DUANE GOMES; ADAM HANRAHAN; and CHARLES
KENNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
and DISABILITY RIGHTS RHODE ISLAND, on behalf of its constituents,
v. RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PATRICIA COYNE- FAGUE,
in her official capacity as the Director of the Rhode Island
Department of Corrections; MATTHEW KETTLE, in his official capacity
as the Assistant Director of Institutions and Operations at the
Rhode Island Department of Corrections; and BARRY WEINER, in his
official capacity as the Assistant Director of Rehabilitation
Services at the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, Case No.
1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge Patricia A. Sullivan
entered an order granting the RIDOC's motion for stay.

   -- Acting pursuant to its inherent power, the Court orders
      that this case is stayed for all purposes until April 21,
      2023, with the exception of the ongoing completion of
      certain discovery.

   -- Relatedly, the Court cancels its previously
      scheduled quarterly discovery status conferences and
      vacates its Orders requiring the parties to file status
      conference reports, pending further Order of the Court.

In these four cases -- Liberty, Morris/Paiva and Diaz -- with the
good-faith participation of RIDOC, this Court has invested
substantial judicial resources in ongoing mediation. That effort is
now supported by two Rule 706 experts in Morris/Paiva, the case
with a certified class and class counsel, one of whom is also the
independent mental health Rule 706 Expert in Liberty.

The Court appointed its Liberty Rule 706 Expert with the
understanding that there would be a halt to aggressive and
time-consuming litigation to facilitate mediation similar to what
has been ongoing since 2020 in Morris/Paiva and consistent with
DRRI's statutory obligation.

Filed on October 25, 2019, this putative class action seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief to ameliorate alleged violations
of constitutional and federal statutory limitations on the use of
restrictive housing by the RIDOC to sanction and manage prisoners
who have been identified as suffering from serious and persistent
mental illness ("SPMI").

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vwUXML at no extra charge.[CC]

SAFEWAY TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Dispatchers' OT, Goudy Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA GOUDY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SAFEWAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES CORP., Case No.
2:22-cv-01554 (E.D. Wis., Dec. 28, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed
upon wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws as well as liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant operated an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek,
including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, by failing to include all forms of
non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, premiums,
incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in the
employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes.

In July 2022, the Defendant hired the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of dispatcher.

Safeway is a transportation company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

SALESFORCE INC: Yockey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salesforce, Inc. The
case is styled as Patrick Yockey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Salesforce, Inc., Case No.
4:22-cv-09067-JST (N.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Salesforce, Inc. -- https://www.salesforce.com/ -- is an American
cloud-based software company headquartered in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAN FRANCISCO BAR: Reed Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The San Francisco Bar
Pilots, et al. case is styled as Raymond Reed, individually and on
behlaf of all others similarly situated v. The San Francisco Bar
Pilots, Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CGC22603712 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 29, 2022).

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

The San Francisco Bar Pilots -- https://sfbarpilots.com/ -- are one
of the oldest maritime organizations on the Pacific Coast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 949-379-6250


SANDHILLS MEDICAL: Ford Appeals PI Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joann Ford filed an appeal from court rulings entered in
the lawsuit entitled Joanne Ford, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Sandhills Medical Foundation Inc.,
Case No. 4:21-cv-02307-RBH, in the United States District Court for
the District of South Carolina at Florence.

The lawsuit was removed from the Chesterfield County Court of
Common Pleas, to the District of South Carolina on July 26, 2021.

The Plaintiff's claims arise out of "health or health-related
functions performed by [Sandhills]," 42 U.S.C. Section 233(h)(1),
which are not only quintessential to Sandhills' provision of
quality and integrated health care services but are statutorily
mandated for all deemed health center entities and a condition of
their deemed PHS status -- i.e., "to implement and maintain systems
and procedures for protecting the confidentiality of patient
information and safeguarding this information against loss,
destruction, or unauthorized use, consistent with federal and state
requirements, may result in disapproval of this deeming
application." The Plaintiff alleges Sandhills' failure to provide
this protection and was harmed as a result. Sandhills' performance
of these functions is intertwined with and inseparable from its
role as a deemed health care provider, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the June 2, 2022 Order granting
Defendant's motion to substitute party terminating Sandhills
Medical Foundation Inc. and adding United States as defendant in
this action; and November 10, 2022 Order and Judgment granting the
United States of America's September 2, 2022 unopposed motion to
dismiss without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Judgment was entered by the Clerk of Court on November 10, and the
case was dismissed without prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Joann Ford v. Sandhills Medical
Foundation, Inc., Case No. 22-2268, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on Dec. 12, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JOANN FORD, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Dylan Artell Bess, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          191 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 965-8811

               - and -

          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 424-5630

Defendants-Appellees SANDHILLS MEDICAL FOUNDATION, INC. and UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA are represented by:

          Jessica L. Fickling, Esq.
          Joseph Preston Strom, Jr., Esq.
          STROM LAW FIRM, LLC
          6923 North Trenholm Road
          Columbia, SC 29206
          Telephone: (803) 252-4800

               - and -

          Matthew Sidney Freedus, Esq.
          FELDESMAN TUCKER LEIFER & FIDELL, LLP
          1129 20th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-0000
          Telephone: (202) 466-8960

               - and -

          Vincent Austin Sheheen, Esq.
          Michael D. Wright, Esq.
          SAVAGE, ROYALL & SHEHEEN, LLP
          1111 Church Street
          P. O. Drawer 10
          Camden, SC 29020-0000
          Telephone: (803) 432-4391

               - and -

          Sheria Akins Clarke, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          55 Beattie Place
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 282-2115

               - and -

          Conor Stewart Kells, Esq.
          U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P. O. Box 888
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044-2904
          Telephone: (202) 616-4273

               - and -

          James Chris Leventis, Jr., Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          1441 Main Street
          Columbia, SC 29201-2692
          Telephone: (803) 343-3172

SAVE MART: Salazar Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
Vivian Salazar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS LLC d/b/a FOODMAXX, a California
limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:22-cv-08234-JCS (N.D. Cal., Dec. 12, 2022), is brought to secure
redress against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act").
Because Defendant's website, https://www.foodmaxx.com/, (the
"website" or "Defendant's website"), is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in
violation of the ADA, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.

The Defendant owns, leases, or operates brick-and-mortar grocery
stores in California and Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com

SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES: Funchess Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jacquita Funchess, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SCANSTAT Technologies, LLC, The
Regional Medical Center of Orangeburg and Calhoun Counties d/b/a
The Regional Medical Center, Matthew Blackburn, MD, Case No.
2022-CP-38-01628 was removed from the Orangeburg County Court of
Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on Dec. 29, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-04711-BHH to the
proceeding.

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

ScanSTAT -- https://www.scanstat.com/ -- is focused on providing
healthcare professionals with efficient, reliable health
information management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          A. Victor Rawl, Jr., Esq.
          GORDON AND REES LLP
          40 Calhoun Street, Suite 350
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Phone: (843) 714-2501
          Fax: (843) 804-4691
          Email: vrawl@grsm.com


SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES: Thomas Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Audrey Thomas, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SCANSTAT Technologies, LLC, McLeod
Regional Medical Center doing business as: McLeod Orthopaedics,
Evan Hanna, MD, Case No. 2022-CP-21-02443 was removed from the
Florence County Court Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina on Dec. 29, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-04714-BHH to the
proceeding.

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

ScanSTAT -- https://www.scanstat.com/ -- is focused on providing
healthcare professionals with efficient, reliable health
information management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

          Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
          Paul J Doolittle, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM (CHA)
          32 Ann Street, Unit B
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (843) 614-8888
          Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
                 pauld@akimlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          A. Victor Rawl, Jr., Esq.
          GORDON AND REES LLP
          40 Calhoun Street, Suite 350
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Phone: (843) 714-2501
          Fax: (843) 804-4691
          Email: vrawl@grsm.com


SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS: Handler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sequium Asset
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Joseph Handler,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC, Palisades Collection, LLC, Case No.
7:22-cv-11007 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 31, 2022).

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

Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC -- https://www.sequium.com/ -- is the
most technologically advanced Accounts Receivable Management
company in the industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEQUOIA BENEFITS: Mitra Sues Over Exposure of PII
-------------------------------------------------
Arnab Mitra and Zarina Abardo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SEQUOIA BENEFITS AND INSURANCE
SERVICES, LLC and SEQUOIA ONE PEO, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-08217-WHO
(N.D. Cal., Dec. 12, 2022), is brought against the Defendant on
behalf of other persons harmed by the Data Breach that Sequoia
announced in December 2022 (the "Data Breach") which exposed the
Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information (PII).

Despite marketing itself as a safe repository for sensitive
information, Sequoia failed to take basic precautions designed to
keep that information secure. According to Sequoia, between
September 22, 2022, and October 6, 2022, hackers gained access to
the cloud system that Sequoia uses to store a wide range of
sensitive personal information on its customers' employees and
their family members--including names, addresses, dates of birth,
employment status, marital status, Social Security numbers, wage
data related to benefits, member identification cards, Covid-19
test results, and vaccination cards.

In the Data Breach notification letters, Sequoia admits that
information in its cloud storage system was accessed by
unauthorized individuals. The particularly sensitive nature of the
exposed data, which includes Social Security numbers, driver's
license numbers, and medical information, means Plaintiffs and
Class members have suffered irreparable harm and are subject to an
increased risk of identity theft for the foreseeable future.
Indeed, the information taken in the Sequoia Data Breach already is
reportedly being used to perpetrate identity theft against class
members. The Data Breach was the result of Sequoia's failure to
implement reasonable policies and procedures to protect the
security of the personally identifiable information (PII) it
collected as part of its business.

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII
has been exposed to criminals for misuse. The injuries Plaintiffs
and the Class have suffered and will continue to suffer include:
theft of personal, medical, and financial information; financial
losses caused by misuse of their PII; the loss in value of their
PII as a result of the Data Breach; lost time and costs associated
with the detection and prevention of identity theft; the loss in
the benefits that Defendants were to provide Plaintiffs; and lost
time and costs associated with spending time to address and
mitigate the actual and future consequences of the breach, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs work for an organization that uses Sequoia One PEO,
LLC to manage its employee compensation and benefits.

Sequoia offers human resources, employee compensation, and employee
benefits management and administrative services to businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Berger, Esq.
          Linda P. Lam, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Kosbie, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Phone: (510) 350-9"700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          Email: dmb@classlawgroup.com
                 lpl@classlawgroup.com
                 jbk@classlawgroup.com


SERVICELINK NLS: Appeals Remand Order in Rinsch Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SERVICELINK NLS, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand the lawsuit
entitled Daniel Rinsch, Plaintiff, v. ServiceLink NLS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-05989-GW-AS, that was pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brought this complaint against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting
employees, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unlawful business
practices.

On Aug. 23, 2022, the Defendants removed the case from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On Sept. 15, 2022, the Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state
court, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
George H. Wu on Dec. 16, 2022.

The appellate case is captioned Daniel Rinsch v. ServiceLink NLS,
LLC, et al., Case No. 22-80148, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 27, 2022. [BN]

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

            Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
            Christine T. LeVu, Esq.
            Victoria Bree Rivapalacio, Esq.
            BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW, LLP
            2255 Calle Clara
            La Jolla, CA 92037
            Telephone: (858) 999-1118
                       (858) 551-1223

Defendants-Petitioners SERVICELINK NLS, LLC, et al. are represented
by:

            Kirstin Ault, Esq.
            Charles M. Kagay, Esq.
            COMPLEX APPELLATE LITIGATION GROUP, LLP
            96 Jessie Street
            San Francisco, CA 94105
            Telephone: (415) 649-6700

SHOP -N- SAVE: Nunez Files Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, VALENTINA NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHOP -N- SAVE PHARMACY INC. and
SHALOM KIVOV and MARINA ZAVULUNOVA, as individuals, Defendants,
Case No. 72635/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 14, 2022), arises from
the Defendants' alleged egregious violations of the New York State
wage-and-hour laws, and specifically, the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from in or around
December 2021 until in or around March 2022 as a stocker, front
desk and customer service worker and delivery worker while
performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants.

The Plaintiff claims that she regularly worked approximately 33
hours per week. However, the Defendants failed to pay her the
legally prescribed minimum wage for all her hours worked throughout
her employment with the Defendant. The Plaintiff also asserts that
the Defendant willfully failed to keep payroll records, and
willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime
wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment as required by the NYLL.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated workers, to
recover unpaid minimum wages from the Defendants as well as
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of this
action together with reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief
as the Court deems necessary and proper.

Shop -n- Save Pharmacy Inc. operates a pharmacy. Shalom Kivov and
Marina Zavulunova are the owners of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Tel: (718) 263-9591

SHREDZ SUPPLEMENTS: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SHREDZ Supplements,
LLC. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHREDZ Supplements, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00004-GLS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Jan. 1, 2023).

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

SHREDZ Supplements LLC -- https://shredz.com/ -- is a company that
operates in the Health, Wellness and Fitness industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


SI ONLINE LLC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SI Online, LLC. The
case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SI Online, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10993
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2022).

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

SI Capital -- https://sicapitalgroup.com/ -- is a long-term
investor and a firm formed to source and manage investments for the
founder of 5-hour ENERGY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


SILVER CINEMAS: Osheske Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Paul Osheske, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co. doing
business as: Landmark Theaters, Case No. 22STCV37156 was removed
from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Dec. 30, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-09463 to the
proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Tort
Action.

Silver Cinemas Acquisition Company, doing business as Landmark
Theatres -- https://www.landmarktheatres.com/ -- operates a chain
of theaters and screens.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Teresa C. Chow, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Phone: (310) 820-8800
          Fax: (310) 820-8859
          Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com


SOLO FUNDS: Checchia Sues Over Unlawful Misrepresentation
---------------------------------------------------------
Steven Checchia, individually and as a representative of the Class
v. SOLO FUNDS INC., Case No. 221202685 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia Cty., Dec. 30, 2022), is brought seeking damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs against Solo for violations of the:
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), Loan
Interest and Protection Law ("LIPL"), and Consumer Discount Company
Act ("CDCA") as a result of the Defendant's misrepresentation that
its
advances on its lending app cost nothing.

Solo owns and operates a lending app called "Solo." The Solo app
claims to connect investors who wish to fund advances to consumers
who wish to obtain advances. The app allows consumers to request
advances of up to $500.00. Prior to June 25, 2021, the advances had
terms between 5 and 15 days. On and after June 25, 2021, the
advances had terms of up to 35 days.

Solo claims consumers do not have to pay money to obtain advances
using the Solo app, but this is untrue. To obtain an advance
through the Solo app, consumers enter the amount they seek and the
term to repay that amount. Consumers are then asked if they wish to
pay money to obtain their advance. Specifically, consumers are
asked if they wish to "tip" the investor that funds their advance,
and if they wish to "donate" to Solo for issuing their advance.
Solo recommends that consumers pay 21% of their advance to ensure
the advance is funded, 12% of which Solo recommends paying its
investor and 9% of which Solo recommends paying Solo itself.
Although consumers can theoretically obtain an advance without
paying money, in practice, consumers cannot obtain an advance
through the Solo app without agreeing to pay money to obtain the
advance.

Rather than truthfully disclose the cost of its advances, Solo
misrepresents that its advances cost nothing. Before issuing
consumers an advance, Solo drafts and completes a promissory note
and Truth-in-Lending Act ("TILA") disclosure, which represent that
the consumer's advance has a $0.00 Finance Charge and a 0% APR.
This representation is false because the advances issued through
the Solo app have significant costs, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a person residing in Delaware County,
Pennsylvania.

Solo is a technology company headquartered in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin Tucker, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Phone: (412) 223-5740
          Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com


SOMNIA INC: Sommers Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Somnia, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Raycine Sommers, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Somnia, Inc., Anesthesia
Services of San Joaquin PC, Case No. 7:22-cv-10572-PMH (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 14, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Somnia Anesthesia Services -- https://somniaanesthesiaservices.com/
-- is an innovative anesthesia management company that offers
professional anesthesia services and expert anesthesia
consultants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 956-1000
          Fax: (415) 956-1008
          Email: msobol@lchb.com

               - and -

          Sean Petterson, Esq.
          Jason Louis Lichtman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Phone: (212) 355-9500
          Fax: (212) 355-9592
          Email: spetterson@lchb.com
                 jlichtman@lchb.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Capdeville Sues Over Unrefunded Canceled Flight
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric F. Capdeville, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 2:22-cv-05590-JCZ-KWR
(E.D. La., Dec. 30, 2022), is brought against the Defendant's
failure to provide prompt refunds for canceled flights.

Beginning Friday, December 23, 2022, Southwest Airlines began
canceling flights nationwide blaming the failure on a
weather-driven issue. Subsequently, Southwest continued to cancel
flights blaming weather through Wednesday, December 28, 2022
resulting in more than 14,500 flights canceled since the prior
Friday. Wednesday, December 28, 2022 alone Southwest cancelled 2500
flights. Southwest CEO Bob Jordan confirmed the airline needed to
upgrade its legacy systems. The Department of Transportation also
confirmed that the cancellations came about as a result of
Southwest's decision and actions.

Southwest's response to the internally created crisis was to
suggest customers could submit receipts for flight cancellations
from December 24, 2022 through January 2, 2023 for consideration
reimbursement. Southwest's Contract of Carriage mandates refunds in
this situation as well as full compensation for incurred costs and
resultant cancellations for the failure of the carriage contract.
Southwest's failure to provide prompt refunds for canceled flights
violates not only its own Contract of Carriage, but also federal
law.

On October 10, 2022, the Plaintiff purchased two tickets for travel
Tuesday, December 27, 2022 from New Orleans, Louisiana (MSY) to
Portland, Oregan (PDX) for himself and his daughter, which included
a connecting flight to Pheonix, Arizona (PHX) (the "Trip") through
Southwest Airlines. Prior to departing the Plaintiff checked saw
the news that thousands of flights had been cancelled by Southwest
Airlines. Upon checking, he confirmed that his Southwest flight had
been cancelled and hos reservations and stay in Portland would be
lost without reimbursement. After speaking to customer service
Capdeville confirmed that in fact the Plaintiff's flights had been
canceled. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff could not take the
flight he booked, and the Defendant could not offer any comparable
accommodations on another flight, the Plaintiff was not given a
refund, but was only offered a credit for use on a future flight,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased two tickets from the Defendant.

Southwest Airlines Company became the nation's largest domestic air
carrier in 2003 and maintains that ranking based on the U.S.
Department of Transportation's most recent reporting of domestic
originating passengers boarded.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jim S. Hall, Esq.
          Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
          JIM S. HALL & ASSOCIATES, LLC.
          800 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite #100
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Phone: 504-832-3000
          Facsimile: 504-832-1799
          Email: Jodi@jimshall.com
                 Mmoreland@jimshall.com


STEEL CITY COLLECTIBLES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steel City
Collectibles, Inc. The case is styled as Daysi Hernandez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Steel City Collectibles, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10985 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 30, 2022).

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

Steel City Collectibles -- https://www.steelcitycollectibles.com/
-- offers the latest sports card releases, gaming card releases,
certified memorabilia and mor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


STERICYCLE INC: ISCO Sues Over Medical Waste Disposal Price Hike
----------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL STEM CELL CORPORATION, a California corporation,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Stericycle, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV40655 (Cal. Super., Dec. 28, 2022)
alleges that Stericycle purports to charge flat rates to its
customers but instead it consistently employed price increases as a
revenue-generating tool throughout the class period.

As a result, the supposedly "fixed rates" the customers were
supposed to pay were substantially increased throughout the
contract term.

According to the complaint, Stericycle engaged in unfair
competition by asserting a contractual right which it did not have,
and by engaging in fraud and deceit it violates the California
Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff seeks relief from Stericycle due to this common
practices, including:

   -- an order certifying the action to be maintained as a Class
      action and ordering the Plaintiff and its counsel to
      represent the Class;

   -- equitable relief including injunctive relief, and
      disgorgement and restitution;

   -- costs of this suit;

   -- pre- and post-judgment interest; and

   -- such other and further relief as this Court may deem
      necessary or proper.

In March, 2015, ISCO entered into a Steri-Safe Service Agreement
with Stericycle, effective May 1, 2015, for the collection,
transportation, treatment and disposal of all of ISCOS's regulated
medical waste. From the effective date of the Agreement through its
termination, Stericycle regularly increased the price and the
amounts invoiced each month such that ISCO was charged more than
twice the contracted amount.

During the first four months of the Agreement, from May, 5 2015
through August, 2015, Stericycle raised the flat price of $1,304.01
to $1,585.19. Stericycle continued to raise the price until during
the final months of the Agreement, from May 26, 2021 through
February 2, 2022, Stericycle billed ISCO $3,619.56 per month,
nearly three times the amount of the initial term. Stericycle
concealed its regular price increase scheme from its customers
including the Plaintiff and the public. When Stericycle imposed
price increases, it did not notify the customer that its prices
were being increased, issue any price increase announcements, or
provide any notification to its customers that their rates were
going up, says the suit.

ISCO brings this action on behalf of itself and the following
similarly situated class of persons and entities:

   "all persons and entities in the State of California that
   entered into a Steri-Safe Service Agreement for a flat fee at
   any time within the period beginning four years prior to the
   filing of this action and ending at the time this action
settles
   or proceeds to final judgment."

ISCO is a publicly traded biotechnology company.

Stericycle is a publicly traded medical waste disposal
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony C. Kohrs, Esq.
          KOHRS & FISKE
          21361 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite A
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (310) 452-5524
          E-mail: ak@kohrsandfiske.com

                - and -

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Scott A. Brooks, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  sbrooks@maternlawgroup.com

STRENGTHEN LENGTHEN: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strengthen Lengthen
Tone, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Strengthen Lengthen
Tone, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00006 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 1, 2023).

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

Strengthen Lengthen Tone, LLC -- https://sltnyc.com/ -- owns and
operates fitness centers. The Company offers fitness, beauty,
nutrition, and wellness programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNEOS HEALTH: Scurlock Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Reginald Scurlock, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. SYNEOS HEALTH US, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV36776
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Dec. 29, 2022, and assigned Case
No. 2:22-cv-09444.

Through his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged the Defendant violated
various provisions of the California Labor Code and committed
unlawful business practices. In addition to actual and liquidated
damages, the Plaintiff seeks restitution, declaratory relief,
pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties, costs, attorneys' fees,
and "such other relief as the Court deems just and proper." The
Plaintiff alleges the following violations in five causes of action
against Defendant: Failure to Indemnify; Failure to Provide
Accurate Written Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Final
Wages; Secret Profit Through Unlawful Deductions; Unfair
Competition. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
          Samuel S. Sadeghi, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
          Phone: +1.714.830.0600
          Fax: +1.714.830.0700
          Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
                 sam.sadeghi@morganlewis.com


TECHWATER LLC: Florez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Florez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TECHWATER LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00050 (W.D. Tex., Dec.
29, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, back wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

During the Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he regularly
worked in excess of forty hours per week. The Defendant knew or
should have known that the Plaintiff worked in excess of forty
hours per week. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the
entirety of all the hours he worked and did not pay him for the
hours in excess of forty per week "at a rate not less than one and
one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed." Instead,
the Defendants paid the Plaintiff at the same rate of pay for all
the hours he worked. In other words, the Defendants paid the
Plaintiff for his overtime at a rate less than one and one-half
times the regular rate at which he was employed in violation of the
FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from May 2022 until
August 2022 as a roustabout.

The Defendant is an oilfield service company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110
          Houston, TX 77002-1063
          Phone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                 curt@mooreandassociates.net


THEORY LLC: Ezra Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALON EZRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THEORY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-10535 (S.D.N.Y., December 14, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began receiving
telephonic sales calls to his cellular telephone number from the
Defendant's 72611 number on or about October 25, 2022. Allegedly,
the Defendant engages in aggressive telephonic sales calls to
consumers to promote its goods and services without obtaining the
recipient's prior express written consent as required under the
FTSA. The Defendant also used a computer software system that
automatically selected and dialed consumers' telephone number. In
addition, the Defendant's messages failed to include opt-out
instructions for consumers who wish to remove themselves from the
Defendant's telemarketing solicitations. Although the Plaintiff
responded “STOP” to the Defendant's text message on or about
October 26, 2022, the Defendant ignored the Plaintiff's opt-out
demand and continued sending numerous promotional text message,
says the suit.

Moreover, the Defendant caused similar telephonic sales calls to be
sent to other individuals residing in New York, Florida and
throughout the United States. The Defendant's telephonic sales
calls have caused them harm, including statutory damages,
inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, and annoyance.
Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages, and any other available legal or equitable remedies as the
Court deems necessary, the suit added.

Theory, LLC is a clothing and apparel retail company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Tel: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

TIC INTERNATIONAL: Jaros Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TIC International
Corporation. The case is styled as Christy Jaros, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. TIC International
Corporation., Case No. 1:22-cv-02396-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind., Dec. 13,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

TIC International Corporation -- https://www.tici.com/ -- provides
consulting, actuarial and administrative services to those
responsible for employee benefits programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan A. Giribaldo, Esq.
          Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
          PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC
          501 Congress Avenue, Suite 150
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (561) 726-8444
          Email: bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com
                 akruzyk@pkglegal.com


TIKTOK INC: Fleming Sues Over Secretly Intercepted Contents
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carina Fleming, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. TIKTOK INC. (f/k/a MUSICAL.LY, INC.) and BYTEDANCE
INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-07370-JXN-JSA (D.N.J., Dec. 29, 2022), is
brought against the Defendants who invaded the privacy of Plaintiff
and Class Members by secretly intercepting details and contents
about Plaintiff and Class Members without their consent.

At no time did the Defendants disclose to the Plaintiff and Class
Members that TikTok users who click a link inside the application3
to access an external website, make purchases, register to vote, or
seek to access to any information external to the application
itself, are pushed into an in-app browser which records all of
their data that is input and actions taken while the user is
seemingly outside the TikTok application.

The in-app browser inserts JavaScript code into the websites
visited by TikTok users. The clear purpose of the JavaScript code
inserted into these websites is to track every detail about TikTok
users' website activity. Through its in-app browser, TikTok has
secretly amassed massive amounts of highly invasive information
about its users by tracking their activities on third-party
websites.

The Defendants have unlawfully intercepted private and personally
identifiable data and content from unwitting TikTok users to
generate massive revenues by selling and providing access to this
data. Through their clandestine tracking activities, Defendants
have violated wiretap laws, unlawfully intruded upon users'
privacy, violated their rights of privacy, and unjustly profited
from the unlawful activities. The Plaintiff's class action seeks to
recover all available remedies, including statutory penalties, and
to redress the wrongs imposed by the Defendants on the Plaintiff
and Class Members, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff downloaded the TikTok app and created her TikTok
account on her mobile device.

TikTok operates a social media application and TikTok's in-app
website browser.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700


TITLE 9 SPORTS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Title 9 Sports, Inc.
The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Title 9 Sports, Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-07950 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2022).

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

Title Nine -- https://www.titlenine.com/ -- is an American
manufacturer of athletic clothing and women's workout clothes,
known for its sports bras and fitting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


TORRANCE MEMORIAL: Heard Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Angela Heard, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Torrance Memorial Medical Center,
Case No. 22STCV36178 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Dec. 30, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-09466 to the
proceeding.

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

Torrance Memorial Medical Center --
https://www.torrancememorial.org/ -- is a private hospital located
in Torrance, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Teresa C. Chow, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Phone: (310) 820-8800
          Fax: (310) 820-8859
          Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com


TOWER WAV: Haynes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tower Wav LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Leticia Haynes, individually, and on behlaf
of all others similarly situated v. Tower Wav LLC, Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. CGC22603761 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Dec. 30, 2022).

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

Tower WAV LLC -- https://www.towerwav.com/ -- offers innovative and
dependable mobility services to various markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John G. Yslas, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: 213-255-3937
          Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com


TRANSLATIONS.COM INC: Iravanian Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Hanieh Iravanian, individually, and on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. TRANSLATIONS.COM, INC.,
a Nevada Corporation; TRANSPERFECT, INC., a Nevada Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV407140 was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Dec. 29, 2022, and assigned Case No.
5:22-cv-09157-SVK.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges sixteen causes of action against
the Defendants: Violation of Labor Code Sections 204 & 210 (Late
Payment of Wages); Violation of Labor Code Sections 226- & 226.3
(Inaccurate Wage Statements); Violation of Labor Code Sections 510
& 1194 (Overtime); Violation of Labor Code Sections 204, 206, 218.5
& 218.6 (Failure to Pay Earned Wages); Violation of Labor Code
Sections 201 – 203 (Waiting Time Penalties); Violation of Labor
Code Section 226.7 (Meal & Rest Period Penalties); Violation of
Labor Code Sections 245 – 249 (Sick Leave Penalties); Violation
of Labor Code Section 2802 (Reimbursement); Violation of Labor Code
Section 226.8 (Willful Misclassification); Violation of Business &
Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. (Unfair Business
Practices); Violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 203 (Overtime Under
FLSA); Violation of Gov't. Code Sections 12900, et seq. & 12940(a)
(Discrimination); Violation of Gov't. Code Sections 12900 (Failure
to Prevent Discrimination); Violation of Labor Code Section 1197.5
(Equal Pay); Violation of Labor Code Section 2699 (PAGA); and
Violation of Labor Code Sections 98.6 & 1102.5 (Wrongful
Termination).[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steve L. Hernandez, Esq.
          Jose Pomposo Barajas, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2618
          Phone: 213.330.7700
          Fax: 213.330.7701
          Email: steve.hernandez@dlapiper.com
                 jose.pomposo@us.dlapiper.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Frankl Sues Over False Debt Collection Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Frankl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Transworld Systems, Inc., Continental Finance Company,
LLC; Case No. 7:22-cv-11006 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 31, 2022), is borught
against the Defendants' violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act as a result of the Defendants' deceptive, misleading,
unfair and false debt collection practices.

On October 16, 2022, Defendant Transworld, at the direction of
Continental Finance, sent the Plaintiff a collection letter
("Letter"). The Letter lists the total amount of the debt now
(October 16, 2022) as $1,243.86. However, the Letter also lists the
past due amount as of October 16, 2022 as $205.00. No intervening
charges or credits were listed to address the large discrepancy in
the amount due as of the date of the Letter, October 16, 2022.
Thus, the Letter does not provide the least sophisticated consumer,
and the Plaintiff, with the material information concerning the
correct balance or whether the balance may change.

Due to the lack of material and truthful information, Plaintiff
does not know if the amount of his obligation is static or dynamic.
The Letter would imply to the consumer that a significant amount of
the total debt was added, without explanation. The Letter
materially misled the Plaintiff because when faced with two
equal-amount debts, one of which is getting larger (dynamic) and
one of which will never get larger (static), Plaintiff would pay
the dynamic debt first. Defendants cannot imply or suggest that
there may be additional charges or reductions when in fact there
will not be additional charges or reductions. That false advice
could incentivize the Plaintiff to pay the debt, or not pay the
debt, at a time when, if accurately advised, he would do the
opposite.

Moreover, the Letter provides three different potential addresses
to dispute the debt and/or seek validation of same. Specifically,
the Letter sets forth mailing addresses in Delaware, Pennsylvania
and Illinois. Thus, the Letter is unclear to the least
sophisticated consumer, and the Plaintiff, as to where to send a
written dispute of the debt. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants
failed to give the Plaintiff a valid G-Notice, and deprived the
Plaintiff of all rights derived therefrom, by continuing with its
collection despite the deficiencies in the Letter. The Letter is
therefore false, deceptive, misleading, and unfair, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of
Rockland.

The Defendants are "debt collectors."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Yusko, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com


TRINITY TEEN: Sherman Brings Another Appeal to 10th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs CARLIE SHERMAN, et al. filed anew an appeal from a court
order denying their motion for class certification in the lawsuit
entitled Carlie Sherman, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Trinity Teen Solutions,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-00215-SWS, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Wyoming.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, all human trafficking victims of the "troubled teen
industry," brought this suit on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons against the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendant owners and their
recruitment agents defrauded the Plaintiffs, other putative class
members, and their parents throughout the recruitment process,
inducing them into paying substantial fees for residential
treatment, under promises of receiving full-time cutting-edge
therapies and while maintaining proper education towards high
school graduation. The Defendant owners actually forced the
Plaintiffs and putative class members to work without pay for
periods of time lasting between months and years. The Defendant
owners and/or their agents caused the Plaintiffs and the putative
class members to believe that if they did not work for the
Defendants, they would suffer physical or emotional abuse and
prolonged confinement.

On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge Scott W. Skavdahl on Oct. 5, 2022. The Court ruled that the
commonality, typicality, and predominance requirements of Rules
23(a)(2), 23(a)(3), and 23(b)(3) are not met in this case.
Consequently, class certification is not warranted.

The Plaintiffs previously filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled
captioned Sherman, et al. v. Trinity Teen Solutions, et al., Case
No. 22-705, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, on October 19, 2022.

On December 6, 2022, Honorable Skavdahl granted a motion to stay
case. The case was stayed pending disposition of the permissive
appeal granted in the Tenth Circuit Docket No. 22-705. It was
further ORDERED that the trial setting and all pretrial deadlines
in this case be VACATED. Upon disposition of the Tenth Circuit
Docket No. 22-705, the parties shall provide notice to the
magistrate judge, who will then reconvene a new scheduling
conference.

The new appellate case is captioned as Sherman, et al. v. Trinity
Teen Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-8080, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on Dec. 7,
2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing statement was due on December 21, 2022 for Anna
Gozun, Amanda Nash, and Carlie Sherman;

   -- Transcript order form was due on December 21, 2022 for Anna
Gozun, Amanda Nash, and Carlie Sherman; and

   -- Notice of appearance was due on December 21, 2022 for
Dally-Up, LLC, Anna Gozun, Amanda Nash, Carlie Sherman, Trinity
Teen Solutions, Inc., Angela C. Woodward, Jerry D. Woodward, Kara
Woodward, and Kyle Woodward.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners CARLIE SHERMAN, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Bryce W. Ashby, Esq.
            Craig A. Edgington, Esq.
            Brice Moffatt Timmons, Esq.
            DONATI LAW FIRM
            1545 Union Avenue
            Memphis, TN 38104
            Telephone: (901) 278-1004

                   - and -

            Nathan A. Nicholas, Esq.
            Michael B. Rosenthal, Esq.
            HATHAWAY & KUNZ
            2515 Warren Avenue, Suite 500
            P.O. Box 1208
            Cheyenne, WY 82003
            Telephone: (307) 634-7723

                   - and -

            William E. Routt, III, Esq.
            Frank L. Watson, III, Esq.
            WATSON BURNS, PLLC
            253 Adams Avenue
            Memphis, TN 38103
            Telephone: (901) 529-7996

Defendants-Respondents TRINITY TEEN SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., are
represented by:

            Lillian Alves, Esq.
            Thomas B. Quinn, Esq.
            Lindsey M. Romano, Esq.
            GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
            555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3400
            Denver, CO 80202
            Telephone: (303) 534-5160

TWITTER INC: Jackson Sues Over Censorship Scheme
------------------------------------------------
Richard Jackson, Julie Briggs, and Gregg Buchwalter, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TWITTER, INC., a
Delaware corporation; GOOGLE, LLC, a limited liability company;
ALPHABET, INC., a Delaware corporation; META PLATFORMS, INC., a
corporation doing business as "META" and "FACEBOOK, INC.";
INSTAGRAM, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON INC. a Delaware
corporation; YOU TUBE, INC., a Delaware corporation; APPLE, INC., a
Delaware corporation; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS; NATIONAL
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION; DNC
SERVICES CORPORATION, a corporation doing business nationwide as
"THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE" OR "DNC," Case No.
2:22-cv-09438 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 29, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants' Censorship Scheme.

The Defendant the Democratic National Committee (the "DNC"), the
federal government and in particular, the Biden Administration,
aided and abetted by the "mainstream media," colluded with and/or
coerced social media companies, internet retailers and
distributors, public school teacher unions and school board
associations, including the private party defendants named and
described herein, to suppress and censor disfavored speakers,
viewpoints and content on social media platforms and/or barred them
from the public square by falsely labeling content
"dis-information," "misinformation," and "mal information"
(hereinafter the "Censorship Scheme").

The Plaintiffs allege that the DNC and the Biden Administration's
"weaponized" federal agencies--including the Department of Justice
("DOJ"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), Center for
Disease Control ("CDC"), Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"),
Department of Health ("DOH"), Department of Education ("DOE"),
State Department and Department of Defense ("DOD")--relying on
public fear caused by the Covid 19 Pandemic, lockdowns and health
concerns--unnecessarily closed public schools, shut down services
from essential service providers and other private public
businesses and threatened other adverse government action to coerce
and direct the private-party defendants herein to do that which the
Constitution prohibits the government from doing directly--namely,
to censor and suppress lawfully protected speech and communications
of disfavored (primarily conservative or Republican Party)
speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms.

The vast Censorship Scheme's tentacles have reached as far as the
internet retailer defendants, including Apple, Inc. and Amazon,
Inc., who refused and continue to refuse to distribute books,
articles, movies, audios and other communications written or
published by conservative or "disfavored" speakers under the
direction of the federal government and the Biden Administration's
Orwellian guise of "misinformation."

However, in December 2022, Elon Musk, the new owner of Defendant
Twitter, Inc., "outed" the Censorship Scheme when he began a series
of public postings of internal Twitter documents by and between
Twitter and the Biden Administration (and even a few communications
from the Trump-led CDC) that established, disclosed and confirmed
not only the existence of the Censorship Scheme, but also that
agents of the FBI and other federal agencies, including the DHS,
regularly conducted secret weekly meetings with managing agents of
Defendants Twitter, Facebook, Inc. and the other social media and
internet retailer giants named as defendants herein for the purpose
of identifying for them what speech they should suppress or censor
on behalf of the government as "misinformation." Not surprisingly,
virtually all of the communications that the FBI directed
Defendants to censor and suppress as "misinformation" were
truthful, lawfully protected opinions and viewpoints of
conservative or Republican Party speakers or platform users.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' Censorship
Scheme, Plaintiffs and the Putative Class have been damaged and
harmed. Among other things, they lost their right to vote without
outside interference in the 2020 and 2022 national elections.
Plaintiffs and the Putative Class have also been irreparably harmed
and will continue to be irreparably harmed unless and until
Defendants are restrained and enjoined by this Court from engaging
in their Censorship Scheme and in particular, restrained and
enjoined from any further censorship and suppression of
"disfavored" speech under the guise of preventing the spread of
"misinformation." In light of the extreme closeness of the 2020 and
2022 national elections, which were decided by just a handful of
votes in four highly contentious "swing states," Defendants and the
Biden Administration will once again put their thumb on the scale
of public debate and continue to interfere in future elections
unless and until the Court restrains and enjoins Defendants'
actions and in particular, their Censorship Scheme, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are registered Republicans with conservative
viewpoints who considers herself to be a so-called "MAGA
Republican."

Twitter was acting under color of law and in particular, engaging
in the Censorship Scheme on behalf of the Biden Administration and
federal government.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael E. Reznick, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. REZNICK
          A Professional Corporation
          283 Ocho Rios Way
          Oak Park, CA 91377-5540
          Phone: (818) 437-5630
          Email: reznagoura@aol.com


TYWISH LLC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tywish, LLC. The case
is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Tywish, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00001
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 1, 2023).

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

Tywish, LLC is a business entity registered with the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UMPQUA BANK: Appeals Summary Judgment Bid Denial in Camenisch Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
UMPQUA BANK is taking an appeal from a court order denying its
motion for summary judgment and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the lawsuit entitled Shela Camenisch, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Umpqua Bank, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-05905-RS,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brought this class action against the Defendant for aiding and
abetting in Ken Casey's Ponzi scheme. According to the complaint,
for the last several decades, Ken Casey has offered investors safe,
steady returns backed by Marin County commercial real estate. When
Casey died suddenly in May, however, it quickly became apparent
that his investment business was actually a long-running Ponzi
scheme likely to cost investors more than $100 million. The
Plaintiffs were among those investors, who have lost their savings
as a result of Casey's Ponzi scheme and Umpqua Bank's knowing
participation in that scheme. Casey's investment companies are now
in bankruptcy and will not be able to make full restitution. But on
behalf of themselves and other investors like them, the Plaintiffs
seek to hold Umpqua liable for aiding and abetting Casey's Ponzi
scheme and require it to make amends to the scheme's victims.

On Feb. 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. The Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter an order
certifying the following class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All persons who
invested money with Professional Financial Investors, Inc. (PFI) or
Professional Investors Security Fund, Inc. (PISF) through secured
or unsecured debt instruments or an LLC membership purchase
agreement; who did not recover the principal amount of their
investment prior to July 14, 2020; and who have a valid, allowed
claim in In re Professional Financial Investors, Inc., Case No.
20-bk-30604 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.) or any of its affiliated debtor
bankruptcy cases, jointly administered under Case No.
20-bk-30604."

On June 2, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment,
which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Richard
Seeborg on Dec. 16, 2022. Judge Seeborg determined that Umpqua is
not entitled to summary judgment because he found evidence of
direct participation by bank employees, and in particular June
Weaver, in some of the mechanics of the scheme. While Umpqua
stressed that performing ordinary banking transactions at the
customer's request does not suffice, Judge Seeborg said the
evidence includes instances where Weaver went well outside the
bounds of ordinary banking transactions, including times where she
did so on her own initiative. Casey and the other case precedents
on which Umpqua relied did not involve similar affirmative conduct
by bank employees, and therefore do not preclude liability as a
matter of law in these circumstances. For these reasons, the motion
for summary judgment was denied. The Court also denied the
Defendant's motion to exclude the report of Dan Salah and the
pending sealing motions without prejudice to the parties'
submission of a proposed sealing order. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification was granted.

The appellate case is captioned Shela Camenisch, et al. v. Umpqua
Bank, Case No. 22-80149, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 30, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Shela Camenisch, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Linda Pham Lam, Esq.
            Michael Lawrence Schrag, Esq.
            GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
            1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
            Oakland, CA 94607
            Telephone: (510) 350-9700
            E-mail: lpl@classlawgroup.com
                    mls@classlawgroup.com

                    - and -

            Scott L. Silver, Esq.
            SILVER LAW GROUP
            11780 W. Sample Road
            Coral Springs, FL 33065
            Telephone: (954) 755-4799
            E-mail: rschwamm@silverlaw.com
                    ssilver@silverlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner UMPQUA BANK is represented by:

            James C. Martin, Esq.
            Kasey J. Curtis, Esq.
            REED SMITH LLP
            355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
            Los Angeles, CA 90071
            Telephone: (213) 457-8000
            Facsimile: (213) 457-8080

                    - and -

            Alicia A. Baiardo, Esq.
            Anthony Q. Le, Esq.
            MCGUIREWOODS LLP
            Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 844-9944
            Facsimile: (415) 844-9922

UNITED STATES: Appeals Summary Judgment in Huisha-Huisha Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, in his
official capacity, et al., filed an appeal from court rulings
entered in the lawsuit entitled NANCY GIMENA HUISHA-HUISHA, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, et al. v.
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Case
No. 1:21-cv-00100-EGS, in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.

The Plaintiffs are six families that fled their countries to seek
asylum and other forms of humanitarian protection in the United
States. All face summary expulsion pursuant to unlawful Title 42
Process, without any hearing or access to the protections to which
they should be entitled under immigration laws. The Plaintiffs
filed this action on January 12, 2021. They filed a motion for
class certification on January 28, 2021; and a motion for
preliminary injunction on February 5, 2021. On September 16, 2021,
the Court granted both motions.  

The case involves a challenge to the Title 42 System for expelling
certain migrants attempting to enter the United States without
authorization to do so. The District Court previously enjoined that
system, which this Court stayed on an emergency basis and
subsequently reversed.

On remand, the District Court again granted a permanent injunction
against the Title 42 System on alternative grounds, and also
vacated the relevant agency actions. Upon the joint request of
Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants, the district court granted a
stay of its injunction and vacatur until December 21, 2022.

Pursuant to Circuit Rules 8 and 27(f), Proposed
Intervenor-Defendants the States of Arizona, Louisiana, Alabama,
Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia,
West Virginia, and Wyoming submit this petition in connection with
their emergency motion for a stay pending appeal of the judgment
and injunction of the district court.

The appellate case is captioned as Nancy Huisha-Huisha, et al. v.
Alejandro Mayorkas, et al., Case No. 22-5325, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on
Dec. 9, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- APPELLANT docketing statement was due on January 9, 2023;

   -- APPELLANT certificate as to parties was due on January 9,
2023;

   -- APPELLANT statement of issues was due on January 9, 2023;

   -- APPELLANT underlying decision was due on January 9, 2023;

   -- APPELLANT deferred appendix statement was due on January 9,
2023;

   -- APPELLANT entry of appearance was due on January 9, 2023;

   -- APPELLANT transcript status report was due on January 9,
2023;

   -- APPELLANT procedural motions were due on January 9, 2023;

   -- APPELLANT dispositive motions are due on January 23, 2023;
directing party to file initial submissions: APPELLEE certificate
as to parties was due on January 9, 2023;

   -- APPELLEE entry of appearance was due on January 9, 2023;

   -- APPELLEE procedural motions were due on January 9, 2023; and

   -- APPELLEE dispositive motions are due on January 23,
2023.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland
Security, in his official capacity, et al., are represented by:

          Joshua Paul Waldman, Esq.
          Sharon Swingle, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000

Plaintiffs-Appellees Nancy Gimena Huisha-Huisha, and her minor
child, et al., are represented by:

     Tamara Goodlette, Esq.
          REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR EDUCATION
           AND LEGAL SERVICES
          802 Kentucky Avenue
          San Antonio, TX 78201
          Telephone: (210) 787-3745

               - and -

          Ming Cheung, Esq.
          Daniel Galindo, Esq.
          Lee Gelernt, Esq.
          Omar Jadwat, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004-2400
          Telephone: (212) 549-2607

               - and -

          Stephen Kang, Esq.
          Cody Wofsy, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111

               - and -

          Scott Matthew Michelman, Esq.
          Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          915 15th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 457-0800

UNITED STATES: Class Action Settlement in Guerrero Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL GUERRERO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES
GYPSUM COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1–20, inclusive,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01502-RBM-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Ruth
Bermudez Montenegro entered an order:

   1. granting motion for final approval of class
      action settlement; and

   2. granting motion for attorneys' fees costs and service
      award.

      The Court finally approves Verum Law Group, APC, as
      adequate counsel and approves Class Counsel's application
      for $180,000.00 in attorneys' fees and $14,570.88 in
      costs.

      The Court finally approves Miguel Guerrero as an adequate
      Class Representative and approves his Service Award in the
      amount of $5,000.00 and General Release Payment in the
      amount of $10,000.00.

      The Court approves the payment to the LWDA. The Court
      approves the payment to the Settlement Administrator in
      the amount of $9,000.00.

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
litigation and over all Parties to this litigation, including all
members of the Settlement Class certified for settlement purposes
in this Court's Preliminary Approval Order:

   "all current and former non-exempt employees employed by
   Defendant in the State of California during the period from
   April 29, 2017 through June 3, 2022."

On November 17, 2022, the Plaintiff Guerrero filed a motion for
order granting final approval of class action settlement.

On April 29, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 against
Defendant United States Gypsum Company in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Diego.

On February 9, 2022, the Plaintiff and Defendant attended mediation
with Steve Rottman, "a well-respected mediator for wage and hour
claims." After a full day of mediation, the Parties were able to
reach a resolution.

United States Gypsum Corp manufactures construction materials.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vt6mNE at no extra charge.[CC]

WILLIAM BARR: Bird Class Status Bid Due March 15, 2024
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA BIRD, et al., v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Case No. 1:19-cv-01581 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge
Jia M. Cobb entered an order setting class certification deadlines
as follows:

   -- Plaintiff's Class Certification        March 15, 2024
      Motion due by:

   -- Responses due by:                      April 30, 2024

   -- Reply due by:                          May 30, 2024.

The nature of suit states Job Discrimination (Employment).[CC]


WRIGHT & FILIPPIS: Eckel Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of PII
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Eckel and Dianne Huff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WRIGHT & FILIPPIS, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-13023-SFC-EAS (W.D. Mich., Dec. 14, 2022), is brought to
address the Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of their and Class
Members' Private Information that Defendant collected and
maintained, and for Defendant's failure to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their
Private Information had been subject to the unauthorized access of
an unknown third party.

This class action arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack and
data breach ("Data Breach") on Defendant's networks that resulted
in unauthorized access to highly sensitive data. As a result of the
Data Breach, Plaintiffs and over 800,000 Class Members, suffered
ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of
their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack, emotional distress, and the imminent risk of future harm
caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal information.

In addition, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive personal
information--which was entrusted to Defendant, its officials, and
its agents--was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data
Breach. Information compromised in the Data Breach includes name,
date of birth, patient number, social security number, driver's
license number or state ID financial account number ("PII"), and/or
medical health insurance information ("PHI"). The PII and PHI that
Defendant collected and maintained will be collectively referred to
as the "Private Information." Unfortunately, as a direct result of
the Data Breach, Plaintiffs' lives have not been improved and their
days are anything but normal because both have suffered actual
identity theft and fraud, which Plaintiffs believe is directly
traceable to the Data Breach.

The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a negligent
and/or reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was
maintained on Defendant's computer system and network in a
condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief,
the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper
disclosure of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information
was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice
that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private
Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous
condition. The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' identities are now at
risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the Private
Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the
hands of data thieves, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are both current patients of W&F who received a
notice letter from Defendant dated November 18, 2022, stating that
a data breach involving their sensitive information occurred at W&F
between January 26, 2022, and January 28, 2022.

W&F has provided prosthetics, orthotics, and accessibility
solutions to patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Phone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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



                            *********

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 2023. 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 ***