/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230112.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, January 12, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 10

                            Headlines

ACE DATA GROUP: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AMICA MUTUAL: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Part of Gottlieb Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Choi Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BLUE DEAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Genwright Claims
BROSNAN RISK CONSULTANTS: Arcaina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

C&S DELI GROCERY: Carbonel Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CAPITAL PLUS: Seeks to Strike Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid
COREPOWER YOGA: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DELI MANAGEMENT: Seeks More Time to File Tolling Bid Response
DEMANDBASE INC: Appeals Ruling in Gbeintor Suit to 9th Circuit

DMG MORI: $825K Class Settlement in Arnold Suit Wins Final Approval
DOLE PACKAGED: Bid to Dismiss Jackson Class Suit Granted in Part
EVEREST GLOBAL: Adkins Files Suit in D. New Jersey
FASTAFF LLC: Egan Sues Over Predatory Business Practices
FLEETCOR TECH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended in Lyle Class Suit

FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Ali Wins Class Certification Bid
HARBOR FITNESS CENTER: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HONDA MOTOR: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 25
HOTEL COLLECTION: Petrova Sues Over Unlawful Advertising of Prices
HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES: Lima Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 27, 2025
IU CREDIT UNION: Ind. App. Reverses Arbitration Order in Land Suit
JACK SKEEN: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
KIA AMERICA: Baker Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Michigan
KIA AMERICA: Winston Suit Removed to C.D. California

KRAFT HEINZ: Case Management, Sched Order Entered in Adams
KRAFT HEINZ: Forbes Sues Over Mislabeled Apple Juice Products
LASTPASS US: Sued Over Failure to Safeguard Sensitive Data
MANTA SLEEP: Faces Fontanez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MARIA PAPPAS: Bell Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois

MDL 2949: Parise Suit Consolidated in Hip Implant Product Row
MDL 2973: Morrison Suit Consolidated in Elmiron Liability Row
MDL 3014: 2 Suits Consolidated in Ventilator Product Liability Row
MDL 3050: 8 Suits Consolidated in Chantix Product Liability Row
MDL 3051: 6 Suits Consolidated in ARC Airbag Product Liability Row

NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC: 2nd Amended Stipulated Sched Order Entered
NATIONAL RECOVERY: Grosse Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
NYREV INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
OLIVE GARDEN: Despres Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
PATTERN ENERGY: Judge Recommends Approval of Class Cert. Bid

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Oral Argument Hearing Set for Feb. 28
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Watson Suit
PURDUE FEDERAL: Grant of Arbitration Bid in Neal Suit Affirmed
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Malriat Suit
RADIUS GLOBAL: Snyder Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York

RAEL INC: Blansette Sues Over Deceptive and Misleading Marketing
RAPID INVESTMENTS: Denial of Arbitration in Reichert Suit Affirmed
REALPAGE INC: Kramer Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Rental Prices
REALPAGE INC: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Rental Housing Prices
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Ramirez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

REPUBLIC SERVICES: Augustine Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Walsh Files FDCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
RHODE ISLAND: District Court Grants Bid to Stay Liberty v. RIDOC
RICKSHAW BAGWORKS: Genwright Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES: Morton Suit Removed to D. South Carolina

SEEMAN HOLTZ: $650K Class Deal in Millstein Suit Has Final Approval
SENTINEL PROTECTION: Paul Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Hearing on Summary Adjudication Bid Vacated
SOULCYCLE INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TARGET CORP: Gouwens' Amended Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice

THEATRE REFRESHMENT: Malcher Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Discovery & Class Cert Deadlines Extended
VISIONEER INC: Fontanez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ZAER LTD: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

                            *********

ACE DATA GROUP: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ace Data Group, LLC.
The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Ace Data Group, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00014 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2023).

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

ACE Data Group, LLC -- https://www.datarecovery.net/ -- provides
single-source data recovery, data processing, consulting, and
forensic services for enterprise clients and consumers.[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


AMICA MUTUAL: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Part of Gottlieb Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PETER GOTTLIEB, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant v. AMICA MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee, Case No. 22-1074 (1st
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirms the
district court's dismissal in part of Gottlieb's complaint for
failure to state a claim and its entry of summary judgment
disposing of the remainder of Gottlieb's claim.

Gottlieb claims that the price he agreed to pay Amica to insure his
home was $16 too high because it was based on an excessive coverage
limit. Claiming as well that other Amica insureds paid too much to
insure their homes, he filed the putative class action.

Gottlieb owns a home in Burlington, Massachusetts. In 2015, he
purchased a homeowners insurance policy from Amica that covered him
from March 10, 2015, through March 10, 2016. The coverage limit for
replacing his house in the event of a loss was $311,000, for which
Gottlieb paid a $730 premium. The policy also contained an
endorsement providing additional coverage of up to 130% of the
coverage limit if Gottlieb agreed to certain conditions. The policy
contained no other language allowing Amica to increase coverage
limits.

No loss occurred during the one-year term of the policy. With the
expiration of the policy term approaching, Amica sent Gottlieb a
proposed renewal policy, which contained the same endorsement,
along with a cover letter. The proposed premium for the renewal
policy was $795 ($65 more than the premium for the original
policy). Sixteen dollars of the increase was due to a higher
coverage limit for Gottlieb's house ($321,000 versus $311,000).
Amica arrived at that coverage limit based on a multiplier
calculated by a company called E2Value, Inc., which projected costs
for Gottlieb's zip code based on various data sources. The rest of
the increase in the premium was due to changes in the base rate and
other changes in Amica's public rate filing.

The cover letter accompanying the renewal pointed out that the
increased coverage limit was partially attributable to higher
reconstruction costs. After calling Amica to clarify how much
coverage he would get under the endorsement, Gottlieb accepted the
2016-2017 renewal policy, and Amica issued the policy.

Gottlieb then sued Amica, claiming that the increased coverage
limit on his house and premium in the 2016-17 violated the terms of
his contract with Amica. He argues that the endorsement in his
original policy limited how Amica could set the coverage limit in
the renewal policy; namely, Amica could change the original limit
only if it did a new home inspection, or accounted for an increase
in inflation. Because Amica did not reinspect Gottlieb's home and
because his coverage limit allegedly increased more than the rate
of inflation, Gottlieb contends that Amica breached the policy.

Gottlieb also argues that even if Amica did not explicitly breach
the policy, it breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. In his view, Amica acted in bad faith by adjusting his
coverage limit based on impermissible factors (including projected
future inflation and reconstruction costs), attempting to rewrite
the contract, and deceiving him about why the limit was increasing.
As to the claimed deception, Gottlieb contends that Amica lied to
him by stating in the cover letter that one reason for the proposed
increase in his dwelling limit was a rise in reconstruction costs.
Because Amica received the benefit of Gottlieb's additional premium
but provided no additional practical benefit to Gottlieb, he
argues, he is also entitled to relief for unjust enrichment, money
had and received, and violation of Massachusetts law prohibiting
deceptive business practices, Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A ("Chapter
93A").

Gottlieb filed his complaint in Middlesex Superior Court. Amica
then removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts. The district court dismissed the breach of
contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
claims.

Following discovery and an amendment to the complaint, the district
court granted summary judgment for Amica on the unjust enrichment,
money had and received, and Chapter 93A claims. It found that the
equitable claims were unavailable because there was an adequate
remedy at law and a valid contract. It also concluded that there
was no Chapter 93A violation because although Gottlieb had been
charged a higher premium, he had received the benefit of additional
coverage.

Gottlieb appeals from both the denial of the motion to dismiss and
the grant of summary judgment for Amica.

The First Circuit finds that because the original policy did not
limit Amica's freedom in proposing a coverage limit for the renewal
policy, Gottlieb's breach of contract claim fails. Gottlieb was not
entitled under the initial contract to a proposed renewal coverage
limit reflecting only inflation or a new property evaluation.

Gottlieb's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing fares no better. The First Circuit holds that the
limitation on Amica's changes to the dwelling limit during the term
of the original policy did not apply to the setting of the initial
coverage limit in the renewal policy. Given that conclusion,
Gottlieb cannot claim to have had any reasonable expectation to the
contrary. The covenant of good faith and fair dealing therefore
does not secure this benefit that the contract never guaranteed in
the first place. Nor did Amica do anything to deprive Gottlieb of
the reasonably expected benefits of the policy.

Gottlieb's equitable claims must fail as well, the First Circuit
finds. It says despite Gottlieb's argument to the contrary, the
policy plainly governs the relationship between the parties and the
subject matter of the dispute (Gottlieb's premium), so Gottlieb's
equitable claims are foreclosed.

That leaves Gottlieb's Chapter 93A claim. The First Circuit finds
that it is unable to conclude that Amica by deception sold Gottlieb
coverage he could never use. Evidence that replacement costs may
have increased less than Amica's estimate does not suffice to show
that Gottlieb's coverage limit was so high as to provide illusory
coverage. And, to the extent Gottlieb argues that he was
fraudulently induced to renew the policy based on the deceptive
statement that reconstruction costs had risen, he has not pointed
to any evidence that he would have done anything differently, such
as seeking alternative coverage or forgoing coverage altogether
absent this statement. Gottlieb has thus not shown that he was
injured as required for a 93A claim.

For the foregoing reasons, the First Circuit affirms the orders of
the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yb68f7ne from Leagle.com.

John Peter Zavez, with whom Noah Rosmarin, Brendan M. Bridgeland,
and Adkins, Kelston & Zavez, P.C., were on brief, for the
Appellant.

Christopher Michael Reilly -- creilly@sloanewalsh.com -- with whom
Laura Meyer Gregory -- lgregory@sloanewalsh.com -- Anthony
Antonellis -- aantonellis@sloanewalsh.com -- and Sloane and Walsh,
LLP, were on brief, for the Appellee.


BANK OF AMERICA: Choi Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as You Jin Choi, on behalf of herself and a class
of similarly situated persons v. Bank of America Corporation, Case
No. 2022-CH-11363 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Jan. 3, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00021 to the
proceeding.

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

The Bank of America Corporation -- http://www.bankofamerica.com/--
is an American multinational investment bank and financial services
holding company headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate
Center in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ross Jacob Corbett, Esq.
          Thomas More Leinenweber, Jr., Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
          35 W. Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 558-3760
          Email: rcorbett@winston.com
                 tleinenweber@winston.com


BLUE DEAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Genwright Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS GENWRIGHT, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BLUE DEAL LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 150039/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Jan. 2, 2023) is a class
action challenging Defendant's discriminatory business practices as
its Website thebluedeal.com allegedly contained access barriers
that prevented Plaintiff and other visually impaired and/or legally
blind individuals from purchasing products thereon, in violation of
the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff and the Class seek, inter alia, a preliminary and
permanent injunction, other declaratory relief, statutory damages,
actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expense.

The Blue Deal specializes in providing USA-made and Union-printed
material for Democratic campaigns and Progressive
organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
          E-mail: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

BROSNAN RISK CONSULTANTS: Arcaina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brosnan Risk
Consultants, LTD. The case is styled as Jocelyn Arcaina,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Brosnan Risk Consultants, LTD, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0011865
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 21, 2022).

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

Brosnan Risk Consultants, LTD -- https://brosnanrisk.com/ -- is a
security and investigations company providing security and security
system integration services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676
          Email: greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


C&S DELI GROCERY: Carbonel Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Viviana Carbonel, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees v. C & S DELI GROCERY INC. (DBA Chino's Corner
Deli & Grill) Fermin Chino and Chris Chin, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2023), is brought for unpaid overtime wage
orders pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"),
and for violations of the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and
overtime wage orders of the New York Commission of Labor.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week
that she worked. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately
for any hours worked over 40 hours and paid her at straight time,
which is against the appropriate Labor Laws. The Defendants
maintain a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other
employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing
the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from September 16,
2017, until March 10, 2022.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a grocery located in
Brooklyn, New York under the name of C & S DELI GROCERY INC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          Toneille Raglan, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL PC
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-203-2417
          Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com


CAPITAL PLUS: Seeks to Strike Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eric Greathouse, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Capital Plus Financial, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00686-P (N.D.
Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order striking the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for failure to include a
certification of conference, or in the alternative granting them an
extension to February 27, 2023 to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.

Capital Plus was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business
includes originating mortgage loans and selling mortgage loans.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 4, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GKZgus at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Katherine G. Treistman, Esq.
          Andrew D. Bergman, Esq.
          Eric N. Whitney, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          700 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
          Houston, TX 77002–2755
          Telephone: (713) 576–2400
          Facsimile: (713) 576–2499
          E-mail: Katherine.Treistman@arnoldporter.com
                  Andrew.Bergman@arnoldporter.com
                  Whitney@arnoldporter.com

                - and -

          Michael P. Lynn, Esq.
          Christopher J. Schwegmann, Esq.
          LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN , LLP
          2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
          Dallas, Texas 75201
          Telephone: (214) 981–3800
          Facsimile: (214) 981–3839
          E-mail: mlynn@lynnllp.com
                  cschwegmann@lynnllp.com

COREPOWER YOGA: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CorePower Yoga, LLC.
The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. CorePower Yoga, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00012 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2023).

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

CorePower Yoga -- http://www.corepoweryoga.com/-- is the largest
yoga studio chain in the United States with over 200 studios based
in Denver, Colorado.[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


DELI MANAGEMENT: Seeks More Time to File Tolling Bid Response
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMED HISHAM ELTAYEB,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. DELI
MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a "Jason's Deli", Case No. 4:20-cv-00385-ALM
(E.D. Tex.), the Defendant files an unopposed motion for a
seven-day extension of time to file its responses to Plaintiff's
Motion for Tolling of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Statute of
Limitations and Plaintiff's Combined Second Renewed Motion for
Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and in support.

    a. Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's      Jan. 12, 2023
       Motion for Tolling of FLSA Statute of
       Limitations filed by:

    b. Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's      Jan. 16, 2023
       Combined Second Renewed Motion for
       Notice to Potential Plaintiffs filed
       by:

On December 22, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his Combined Second
Renewed Motion for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and Memorandum in
Support ) and Motion for Tolling of FLSA Statute of Limitations

According to the First Amended Scheduling Order and Local Rule 7(e)
of the Eastern District of Texas, the Defendant's current deadline
to file its response to Plaintiff's Motion for Tolling of FLSA
Statute of Limitations is January 5, 2023, and Defendant's current
deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Combined Second Renewed Motion
for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs is January 9, 2023.

The Defendant has been unable to complete its responses to these
motions due to travel over the holiday season followed by other
unanticipated matters that have required the immediate attention of
defense counsel.

The Defendant's Counsel has conferred with Plaintiff's Counsel, who
has stated that Plaintiff does not oppose the relief sought.

Deli Management. owns and operates a chain of restaurants. The
Company provides salad bars, stuffed potatoes, sandwiches,
desserts, meals, and wraps.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 4, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ihYNGC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Thad Heartfield, Esq .
          M. Dru Montgomery, Esq.
          THE HEARTFIELD LAW FIRM
          2195 Dowlen Road
          Beaumont, TX 77706
          Telephone: (409) 866-3318
          Facsimile: (409) 866-5789
          E-mail: thad@heartfieldlawfirm.com
                  dru@heartfieldlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Kevin D. Johnson, Esq.
          Christopher M. Bentley, Esq.
          Colby J. Ellis, Esq.
          JOHNSON JACKSON PLLC
          100 N. Tampa St., Suite 2310
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 580-8400
          Facsimile: (813) 580-8407
          E-mail:kjohnson@johnsonjackson.com
                 cbentley@johnsonjackson.com
                 cellis@johnsonjackson.com

DEMANDBASE INC: Appeals Ruling in Gbeintor Suit to 9th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Demandbase, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's
December 5, 2022 ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Amos
Gbeintor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Demandbase, Inc., InsideView Technologies, Inc., Case No.
4:21-cv-09470-KAW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

The suit, filed December 8, 2021, alleges that the Defendants
impermissibly use Class Members' names and personal information to
advertise paid subscriptions to a product called "InsideView Pro."
By using Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, likenesses,
photographs, and personas in advertisements for website
subscriptions without consent, InsideView has violated their
intellectual property and privacy rights. The Plaintiff and Class
Members have the right not to have their personas exploited to
promote a product with which they have no relationship and no
interest in supporting, says the suit.

By these actions, InsideView has allegedly violated the California
Right of Publicity, codified in Cal. Civ. Code Section 3344,
California common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or
likeness, and California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.  

On December 5, 2022, Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an Order
GRANTING Plantiff's Motion to Stay. The Court VACATED Defendants'
motion to dismiss and motion to stay hearings.

The appellate case is captioned as Amos Gbeintor, et al. v.
Demandbase, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-15001, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Jan. 3, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Demandbase, Inc. and InsideView Technologies, Inc.
Mediation Questionnaire was due January 10, 2023;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 30, 2023;

   -- Transcript is due on February 28, 2023;

   -- Appellants Demandbase, Inc. and InsideView Technologies, Inc.
opening brief is due on April 10, 2023;

   -- Appellees Wilton Alderman, Dru Dominci and Amos Gbeintor
answering brief is due on May 10, 2023; and

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

Defendants-Appellants DEMANDBASE, INC. and INSIDEVIEW TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. are represented by:

          Julia L. Allen, Esq.
          Cody Gray, Esq.
          Ian A. Kanig, Esq.
          Robert Adam Lauridsen, Esq.
          KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS, LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400

Plaintiffs-Appellees AMOS GBEINTOR, WILTON ALDERMAN, and DRU
DOMINCI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Marie Noel Appel, Esq.
          Michael Ram, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-7155

               - and -

          Ben R. Osborn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN
          102 Bergen Street, Suite 4
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (347) 645-0464

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775

DMG MORI: $825K Class Settlement in Arnold Suit Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN ARNOLD, et al., Plaintiffs v. DMG MORI USA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02373-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James
Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants the motion for final approval, the motions for
attorneys' fees and costs, and the request for an incentive award
for Arnold.

The lawsuit is a consumer class action alleging that DMG 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 the 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 Arnold as the class representative, and Aashish
Desai and Adrianne De Castro of Desai Law Firm, P.C., as the class
counsel.

The settlement agreement provides for a settlement of $825,000 to
be funded by DMG. The parties have agreed to divide the $825,000
into two separate funds: a class distribution fund of $375,000, and
an attorneys fees' fund of $450,000. Attorneys' costs,
administration costs, and incentive awards will be paid from the
class distribution fund. Any reduction of the attorneys' fees will
be paid into the class distribution fund. Id. After attorneys'
fees, costs, and the incentive award are paid, the remaining class
distribution funds will be distributed to the settlement class pro
rata. With attorneys' fees of $450,000, litigation costs of
$13,011.56, administration costs of approximately $13,500, and an
incentive award of $1,500, each class member will receive
approximately $469.54. The Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory
damages of $100 to $1,000 under the FCRA.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the class
settlement and a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The Court
denied the motion for attorneys' fees and costs, and deferred
consideration of the motion for final approval. The Plaintiffs
filed a renewed motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The motions
are unopposed.

Judge Donato's order resolves the motion for final approval, the
motions for attorneys' fees and costs, and the request for an
incentive award for Arnold.

First, he holds that the relief provided by the settlement is
adequate and fair. He finds no issues with the proposed treatment
of class members relative to each other, subject to the incentive
award modification discussed below. The settlement funds will be
distributed on a pro rata basis to the 739 settlement class members
who did not opt out of the settlement, and any unclaimed settlement
funds will be redistributed pro rata to the settlement class
members who cashed their checks. The reaction of the class members
also favors final approval.

Next, Judge Donato holds that the renewed motion for attorneys'
fees and costs provided adequate evidence to support the
reasonableness of the claimed attorney billing rates. The fees
requested are lower than the lodestar. Consequently, Judge Donato
will not deny final approval of the settlement or the fees request
because of the lack of proportionality with the class recovery.
This too is a case-specific determination that is not necessarily
relevant to other cases.

Litigation expenses in the amount of $13,011.56 were reasonably
explained in the declaration of counsel, Judge Donato finds. The
requested reimbursement is granted, and the settlement
administrator's requested costs of up to $13,500 are also granted.

Finally, Judge Donato awards $1,500 to Arnold. The Plaintiffs
initially asked for a $5,000 incentive award for Arnold, which they
reduced to $3,000 in the renewed application. It may be that Arnold
put some work into the case, but the record does not demonstrate
that he is entitled to a payment more than six times larger than
the estimated payment to every other class member.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Donato grants final approval of the
class action settlement. He orders that the single opt-out is
excluded from the settlement.

Judge Donato awards the class counsel $450,000 in attorneys' fees
to be paid from the attorneys' fees fund. The cClass 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, Arnold, is awarded a $1,500 incentive payment.

The case will remain closed, but the counsel must file the
post-distribution accounting document on the ECF docket when the
time comes, as required by the Northern District's Procedural
Guidance for Class Action Settlements.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/563x62sj from Leagle.com.


DOLE PACKAGED: Bid to Dismiss Jackson Class Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMIE JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all
similarly-situated citizens of Illinois and the United States,
Plaintiffs v. DOLE PACKAGED FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-1448-DWD (S.D. Ill.), Judge David W. Dugan of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois:

   a. grants in part and denies in part Dole's Motion to Dismiss;
      and

   b. denies the Motion to Stay Discovery.

Jackson brings this putative class action against Dole, alleging
that Dole deceptively labeled one of its food products. She claims
that the labeling was false and intended to deceive the consumer in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act ("ICFA"), 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq. and common law
express and implied warranties of merchantability, and resulted in
unjust enrichment.

Dole manufactures and sells Fruit Bowl products. Although the
Plaintiff purchased only a single Dole product, she takes issue
with nine of Dole's Fruit bowls: Cherry Mixed Fruit, Diced Apples,
Diced Pears, Mandarin Oranges, Mixed Fruit, Pineapple Tidbits, Red
Grapefruit Sunrise, Tropical Fruit, and Yellow Cling Diced Peaches.
The Products are labeled "in 100% fruit juice."

Jackson alleges that the "in 100% fruit juice" label is deceptive,
unfair, misleading, and false, because it leads Illinois and United
States customers to believe that the juice in the container is in
fact 100% fruit juice and contains no other added ingredients.
According to her, the claim is not true because, as revealed by the
list of ingredients, the Products also contain ascorbic acid and
citric acid, which she describes as added ingredients.

According to the Plaintiff, the presence of ascorbic acid and
citric acid in the Products contravenes Dole's representations that
the Products contain fruit "in 100% fruit juice." She alleges that
she was damaged because she paid a premium for the product,
believing it contained only fruit and fruit juice.

Dole contends that the 100% fruit juice label does not indicate to
the reasonable consumer that the product will not contain added
ascorbic acid or citric acid. Rather, reasonable consumers
understand this statement to mean that the medium in which the
fruit is packed is "100% fruit juice" as opposed to water, syrup,
gelatin, or some other substance -- as is common in alternative
products that are typically present on the same grocery store
shelves. Dole also argues that he Plaintiff failed to allege any
facts plausibly suggesting that the presence of minute amounts of
ascorbic acid and citric acid would be material to reasonable
consumers.

Dole filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. It contends that the
Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6)
because it fails to plausibly allege facts to support an ICFA claim
under the "reasonable consumer" standard. It also contends that the
Plaintiff's claims relating to products she did not purchase, as
well as her request for injunctive relief, must be dismissed for
lack of standing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1).

First, Judge Dugan holds that the Plaintiff lacks standing and,
consequently, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
consider the Plaintiff's claims as to the following Dole Fruit
Bowls(R): Cherry Mixed Fruit, Diced Apples, Diced Pears, Mandarin
Oranges, Pineapple Tidbits, Red Grapefruit Sunrise, Tropical Fruit
and Yellow Cling Diced Peaches. He finds that Jackson's allegations
do not clear the irreducible constitutional minimum of Article III.
And, he is unwilling to read into the "case and controversy"
requirement of Section 2 of Article III to the United States
Constitution a substantially similar exception so as to allow the
Plaintiff to maintain claims when she has no "injury in fact" that
are traceable to representations made on Fruit Bowls she did not
purchase.

Next, Judge Dugan holds that even if Jackson intends to purchase
the Products again, she does not face an imminent threat of future
harm. Merely purchasing one of the Products does not trigger
Jackson's injury. Her injury lies in purchasing one of the Products
under the influence of a deceptive label. There is no chance she
will be misled again because she now knows a quick look at the
ingredients label will reveal the Product's true composition.
Therefore, the complaint fails to allege a real and immediate
threat of future violations of her rights. Jackson's claims are due
to be dismissed to the extent they seek injunctive relief.

As for the ICFA claim, the parties primary dispute is whether Dole
engaged in deceptive or unfair acts or practices. Accordingly, the
question is whether the allegedly false and misleading statements
can be read to create a likelihood of deception or to have the
capacity to deceive a reasonable consumer.

Judge Dugan cannot say as a matter of law that a substantial
portion of reasonable consumers are not deceived by the claim made
by the Defendant in its labeling of the product. The added
ingredients are ascorbic acid and citric acid, both of which
naturally occur in fruits albeit in allegedly different
concentrations. Citric acid is also a commercially manufactured
food additive in processed foods as a pH adjuster and flavor agent.
Much can be said about whether increasing or changing the
concentrations of naturally occurring components of a fruit product
renders it something other than 100%, but whether the Plaintiff has
pleaded her claim sufficiently does not turn on linguistics or
theoretical pontifications of the meaning of the phrase used.
Rather, what matters here is how consumers behave -- how they
perceive advertising and how they make decisions.

The Plaintiff brings claims for common law express and implied
warranties.

Judge Dugan finds that the Defendant moves to dismiss the
Plaintiff's breach of warranty claims with little argument such
that its contention is largely undeveloped. The Defendant makes
little argument for its proposition that the unjust enrichment
claim should be dismissed, except to say that since the Plaintiff's
ICFA claims fail, so must her unjust enrichment claim. But since
the Plaintiff has plausibly pled her ICFA claims, her unjust
enrichment claim also survives the motion to dismiss.

For these reasons, and having given consideration to the parties'
arguments, Judge Dugan grants in part and denies in part Dole's
Motion to Dismiss. He grants Dole's motion with regard to Jackson's
Claim for injunctive relief and her claims relative to Dole Fruit
Bowls(R): Cherry Mixed Fruit, Diced Apples, Diced Pears, Mandarin
Oranges, Pineapple Tidbits, Red Grapefruit Sunrise, Tropical Fruit
and Yellow Cling Diced Peaches. He otherwise denies Dole's motion
as to her claims relative to the Dole Fruit Bowl - Mixed Fruit.

In light of his ruling, Judge Dugan denies the Motion to Stay
Discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ft3w5f53 from Leagle.com.


EVEREST GLOBAL: Adkins Files Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everest Global
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Angela Adkins, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Everest Global
Services, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00004 (D.N.J., Jan. 3, 2023).

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

Everest -- https://www.everestre.com/ -- is a leading global
reinsurance and insurance organization with extensive product and
distribution capabilities, a strong balance sheet and an innovative
culture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Victoria Maniatis, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Fax: (212) 868-1229
          Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com


FASTAFF LLC: Egan Sues Over Predatory Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Egan, Brian Barker, and Sabrina Budden-Wright, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FASTAFF, LLC and
U.S. NURSING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-03364-MEH (D. Colo.,
Dec. 30, 2022), is brought seeks recovery for the pay losses the
Plaintiffs and other travelers experienced as the result of
Fastaff's predatory business practices, which Fastaff blame on the
facilities it staffs.

Travel nurses serve a valuable role in our nation's healthcare
system. Hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare facilities rely on
skilled travel employees to fill short-term nursing employment gaps
on a temporary basis. To fill these roles, healthcare facilities
use intermediary staffing agencies to employ the travelers,
negotiate pay rates, and schedule assignments. Traveling nurses
have played an especially critical role since the start of the
COVID-19 pandemic, as many facilities experienced severe staffing
shortages that required temporary assistance to continue providing
quality healthcare.

But a troubling practice has emerged. Fastaff is offering contracts
to travel nurses with a fixed-term assignment at an agreed-upon pay
rate. After the nurse accepts the position and starts the
assignment, Fastaff makes a "take-it-or-leave-it" demand to accept
less pay or be terminated. Of course, most nurses have no choice
but to continue working the assignment at the lower rate because
they have no reasonable alternatives for comparable employment:
they have already incurred travel expenses, secured short-term
housing, and uprooted their lives to accept the assignment.

Fastaff is knowingly engaging in these "bait-and-switch" practices
to maintain the significant profit margins it had become accustomed
to during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, Fastaff is
underpaying its travel employees for overtime hours worked. By law,
employers must pay their employees one-and-a-half times their
"regular rate" for all hours worked over forty in a workweek. But
in determining this "regular rate," Fastaff has only included its
employees' direct hourly cash wage among other items and has
excluded, in violation of the law, other parts of its employees'
compensation packages, thereby resulting in an artificially low
rate of pay for overtime hours worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were jointly employed by Fastaff and U.S. Nursing as
travel nurses.

Fastaff, LLC is a Colorado limited liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George A. Hanson
          J. Austin Moore
          Alexander T. Ricke
          Crystal Cook Leftridge
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7100
          Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                 moore@stuevesiegel.com
                 ricke@stuevesiegel.com
                 cook@stuevesiegel.com


FLEETCOR TECH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended in Lyle Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lyle v. Fleetcor
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04831 (N.D. Ga.), the Hon.
Judge Michael L Brown entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion for extension of time to file motion for class
certification.

The Court directs the parties to propose an agreed upon deadline in
their forthcoming Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan.

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

FleetCor is an American company that provides fuel cards and
workforce payment products and services.[CC]


FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Ali Wins Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMMED USMAN ALI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FRANKLIN WIRELESS CORP., OC KIM, and DAVID BROWN, Case No.
3:21-cv-00687-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J.
Battaglia entered an order:

   1. granting motion for class certification:

      "All persons and entities other than defendants who
      purchased or otherwise acquired Franklin Wireless
      Corporation ("Franklin" or the "Company") common stock
      between September 17, 2020 and April 8, 2021 (the "Class
      Period"), inclusive;"

      Excluded from the Class are any parties who are or have
      been Defendants in this litigation, the present and former
      officers and directors of Franklin and any subsidiary
      thereof, members of their immediate families and their
      legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and
      any entity in which any current or former Defendant has or
      had a controlling interest; and

   2. appointing Gergely Csaba as class representative, and
      Pomerantz LLP as class counsel.

On April 16, 2021, Mohammed Usman Ali filed a class action
complaint against the Defendants for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On September 15, 2021, the Court appointed Gergely Csaba as Lead
Plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel pursuant to section
21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act.

The operative pleading in this case is the Amended Complaint
("FAC"). The FAC details that Franklin is a provider of wireless
solutions, including mobile hotspots, routers and modems, and
markets and sells its products directly to wireless operators, as
well as indirectly through partners and distributors.

According to the FAC, Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
misleading the market to believe that the Company had no knowledge
that its mobile hotspot devices were manufactured with defective
lithium-ion batteries.

The FAC alleges that during the class period, Franklin knew, but
did not disclose that the hotspot devices were manufactured with
defective lithium-ion batteries that posed a serious safety hazard
because the batteries could overheat and cause severe
13 burns and, in some cases, catch fire.

According to Lead Plaintiff, "a total of 2,172,392 million shares
of Franklin Wireless Common Stock was traded by investors" on the
NASDAQ during the class period. Because Franklin has millions of
shares trading on a national exchange, Lead Plaintiff argues, the
Court may infer that numerosity is met.

Lead Plaintiff further 16 there are thousands of geographically
dispersed members of the proposed class, whose identities can be
readily ascertained from securities brokerage and nominee firms'
books and records.

The Defendants contend that numerosity is not met because "Franklin
knows of fewer than 1000 beneficial shareholders in the public
market" and that such number "is a far cry" from the thousands of
class members Lead Plaintiff believes exist.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jT9fEF at no extra charge.[CC]

HARBOR FITNESS CENTER: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harbor Fitness
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Harbor Fitness Center,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00008 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2023).

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

Harbor Fitness -- http://www.harborfitness.com/-- is Brooklyn's
premiere, privately owned and operated heath club chain boasting
seven locations across the borough.[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


HONDA MOTOR: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 25
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spencer v. Honda Motor
Corp., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00988 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order setting the deadline for May
25, 2023, for Plaintiff to file their Motion for Class
Certification.

The Court will file a Supplemental Scheduling Order after it issues
a ruling on Plaintiff's motion.

The nature of suit states contract product liability.

Honda Motor is a Japanese public multinational conglomerate
manufacturer of automobiles, motorcycles, and power equipment.[CC]


HOTEL COLLECTION: Petrova Sues Over Unlawful Advertising of Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adelina Petrova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HOTEL COLLECTION LLC, a Florida limited liability
company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-09231-SB-JPR
(C.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2022), is brought for its unlawful, unfair,
and fraudulent business practice of advertising fictitious prices
and corresponding phantom discounts on its scent diffusers and many
other items sold through its website
(https://www.hotelcollection.com/), in violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"); California's False Advertising
Law (the "FAL"); the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the
"CLRA"); and the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTCA").

This practice of false reference pricing occurs when a retailer
fabricates a fake regular, original, and/or former reference price,
and then offers an item for sale at a deeply "discounted" price.
The result is a sham price disparity that misleads consumers into
believing they are receiving a good deal and induces them into
making a purchase. Companies like Hotel Collection drastically
benefit from employing a false reference pricing scheme and
experience increased sales.

The California legislature prohibits this misleading practice. The
law recognizes the reality that consumers often purchase
merchandise marketed as being "on sale" purely because the
proffered discount seemed too good to pass up. Accordingly,
retailers, including Hotel Collection, have an incentive to lie to
customers and advertise false sales. The resulting harm is
tangible—the bargain hunter's expectations about the product he
or she purchased is that it has a higher perceived value and she
may not have purchased the product but for the false savings.

The advertised discounts are fictitious because the reference price
does not represent a bona fide price at which Hotel Collection
previously sold a substantial quantity of the merchandise for a
reasonable period of time (or at all) as required by the Federal
Trade Commission ("FTC"). In addition, the represented reference
price was not the prevailing market retail price within the three
months immediately preceding the publication of the advertised
former reference price, as required by California law. The
deception is magnified for these products, because the
representation of the false reference price leads consumers like
Plaintiff to believe they are purchasing a product of substantially
higher quality and that they are purchasing a product that was
previously offered for sale at the significantly higher reference
price.

Through its false and misleading marketing, advertising, and
pricing scheme, Hotel Collection violated and continues to violate
California law, which prohibits advertising goods for sale as
discounted from former prices that are false, and misleading
statements about the existence and amount of price reductions. The
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated consumers who have purchased one or more scent
diffusers, and other items, from Hotel Collection's online store
that were deceptively represented as discounted from false former
reference prices in order to halt the dissemination of this false,
misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct the false and
misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and
obtain redress for those who have purchased merchandise tainted by
this deceptive pricing scheme, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff, in reliance on Hotel Collection's false and
deceptive pricing, purchased a "Hotel Collection Studio Scent
Diffuser" (the "Product") on November 22, 2022 from Hotel
Collection's website (https://www.hotelcollection.com/) for
$119.97.

Hotel Collection, through its website, offers a number of scent
diffusers, scent collections, candles, wines, room sprays, and many
other items, to California consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Cole, Esq.
          KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
          9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: (310) 861-7797
          Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com

               - and -

          Robert Tauler, Esq.
          TAULER SMITH, LLP
          626 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (310) 590-3927
          Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com


HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES: Lima Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josefa D. Cordova Lima, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES OF HILTON HEAD, LLC.,
DMS LLC, D/B/A DELKO ENTERPRISE INC., DAVID L. MYERS, and CARLOS
DANTE ACOSTA Individually, Case No. 9:22-cv-04490-BHH (D.S.C., Dec.
12, 2022), is brought for overtime violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and unpaid wages, treble damages, and other relief
under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

During the summer, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
Undocumented Laundry Workers regularly worked 7 seven days a week
between 75 to 85 hours a work. In fact, on a few occasions the
Plaintiff worked 24 hours straight. Sometimes the Plaintiff worked
so many hours that she slept in her car between shifts. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated Undocumented Laundry Workers had
no choice but work these hours. They were not allowed to take a day
off or leave early. Myers and HSHH told them they would be fired if
they did not work the hours they were instructed to work. The
Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and the other undocumented
laundry workers time and half of their regular hourly wage when
they worked in excess of 40 hours during a work week, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was jointly employed by the Defendants from April of
2019 until March 30, 2022.

HSHH is an industrial laundering business that along with the
other Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          MULLANEY LAW
          652 Rutledge Ave Ste A
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone (843) 588-5587
          Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 27, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARCEL CELESTE NAVARRETTE,
et al., v. INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-01402-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone
entered a scheduling order as follows:

  -- Class Certification Motion Filing     Jan. 27, 2025
     Deadline:

  -- Non-Expert Discovery:                 Aug. 31, 2024

  -- The parties shall exchange the        Feb. 1, 2023
     initial disclosures required by
     Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on or:
     before:

  -- Any motions or stipulations           March 9, 2023
     requesting leave to amend the
     pleadings must be filed by no
     later than:

  -- The parties are ordered to            Aug. 31, 2024
     complete all non-expert discovery
     on or before:

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



IU CREDIT UNION: Ind. App. Reverses Arbitration Order in Land Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Tonia Land, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Appellant-Plaintiff v. IU Credit Union,
Appellee-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-CP-382 (Ind.
App.), the Court of Appeals of Indiana reverses the trial court's
order granting IUCU's motion to compel arbitration.

Land sued IUCU on behalf of a putative class, claiming IUCU had
wrongfully assessed overdraft fees against her and other
customers.

Land has several accounts with IUCU, including a checking account
with a debit card. When she became an IUCU customer, she received a
"Membership & Account Agreement." Among other provisions, the
Agreement discusses IUCU's methods for processing Land's
expenditures from her account, as well as overdraft policies.

Land later registered for online banking. IUCU sent to Land via
electronic means an "Online Banking, Mobile Banking and Text (SMS)
Message Banking Agreement and Disclosure." According to the
Disclosure, Land agreed that IUCU could send notices to her
electronically. Further, the Disclosure stated, IUCU may modify the
terms and conditions applicable to the Services from time to time.
We may send any notice to you via email, and you will be deemed to
have received it three days after it is sent. Finally, the
Disclosure provided that Land would accept the terms and conditions
by clicking an "Accept" button.

In 2019, IUCU sought to require its members to arbitrate any claims
they may have against IUCU and to waive their right to participate
in class actions against IUCU. It prepared a one-page document
entitled "ADDENDUM TO THE MEMBERSHIP & ACCOUNT AGREEMENT." In
summary, the Addendum provides: (1) either party may require any
dispute to be resolved by arbitration without the other party's
consent; and (2) Land and other customers cannot initiate or join a
class action in any arbitration or court proceeding between the
parties.

IUCU attempted to mail the Addendum to each member, enclosed at the
end of their July 2019 account statements. As for IUCU members who
had enrolled in electronic banking services, IUCU attempted to
email them to inform them about the Addendum.

With respect to Land in particular, IUCU mailed the Addendum to the
address she had given the credit union, along with an account
statement, but: (1) the Addendum was included in an account
statement for an account other than Land's checking account; and
(2) Land does not recall receiving the new terms. Land did not send
IUCU a notice that she chose to opt out of the Addendum's
arbitration requirement.

On March 18, 2021, Land filed a Class Action Complaint, alleging
IUCU had wrongfully assessed overdraft fees on accounts that were
not overdrawn. In particular, she claimed that on October 3, 2018,
IUCU wrongfully assessed a $30 overdraft fee against her on a $4.31
debit card transaction, even though IUCU had previously authorized
the transaction on sufficient funds. Land further claimed that
IUCU's actions amounted to breach of contract, breach of a duty of
good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of
Indiana's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act.

On June 15, 2021, IUCU filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration,
claiming the Addendum required that Land's claims be submitted to
arbitration. Land responded to the motion, and IUCU filed a reply
in support of its motion. The trial court held a hearing on the
motion and later granted it, concluding an enforceable agreement to
arbitrate exists between the parties. Next, Land requested and
received permission from the trial court and this Court to pursue
an interlocutory appeal, and this appeal followed.

Land argues the trial court erred in determining her claim against
IUCU was subject to mandatory arbitration, claiming the alleged
contract was invalid due to lack of reasonable notice and, in
addition, she never accepted the offer. In response, IUCU argues
the parties validly contracted to submit all claims to arbitration.
The parties agree that this appeal raises questions of law, which
the Court of Appeals reviews de novo.

Regarding Land's first argument, the Court of Appeals concludes
IUCU failed to provide reasonable notice to Land of the arbitration
contract, and as a result there was no meeting of the minds. It
says fulfilling contractual notice obligations, that IUCU alone
drafted, is not the same as establishing reasonable notice under
the law.

Although that conclusion is a sufficient basis to reverse the trial
court's judgment, the Court of Appeals also examines Land's claim
that she did not validly accept IUCU's contract offer. It concludes
Land's silence did not constitute acceptance, and lack of
acceptance is another ground for invalidating the Addendum's
arbitration requirement. IUCU did not state that her use of IUCU's
banking services would constitute acceptance of the Addendum. To
the contrary, IUCU, the drafter of the Addendum, stated only that
Land's silence would constitute acceptance. The Court of Appeals
will not read terms into the Addendum's plain language.

For the reasons stated, the Court of Appeals reverses the trial
court's grant of IUCU's motion to compel arbitration and remands
for further proceedings not inconsistent with its Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2apsjvbr from Leagle.com.

Lynn A. Toops -- LTOOPS@COHENANDMALAD.COM -- Vess A. Miller --
VMILLER@COHENANDMALAD.COM -- Lisa M. LaFornara --
LLAFORNARA@COHENANDMALAD.COM -- Tyler B. Ewigleben, Cohen & Malad,
LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, John Steinkamp, John Steinkamp &
Associates, P.C., Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for the
Appellant.

James R. Branit -- Branit@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Phillip G.
Litchfield -- LitchfieldP@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo
LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Attorneys for the Appellee.


JACK SKEEN: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE REULE, et. al.,
v. THE HONORABLE JUDGE JACK SKEEN, et. al., Case No.
6:22-cv-00367-JDK (E.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting an extension of time to file a reply in
support of their Joint Opposed Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Certify a Defendant Class
of Texas Local Administrative Judges and a Defendant Class of Texas
Court Clerks.

   -- The Defendants request an extension to, and including,
      January 17, 2023.

The Plaintiffs filed a First Complaint on September 19, 2022. The
Defendants, Megan LaVoie, and Honorable Judge Jack Skeen filed a
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Original Complaint on October 18,
2022 raising sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, and the Younger
and Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrines.

The Defendants Judge Skeen and Director LaVoie subsequently filed a
Motion to Stay Pre-Trial Proceedings and Protective Order on
November 9, 2022.

The Defendants sought a stay and protective order because immunity
includes immunity from suit. Pre-trial proceedings and discovery
should be stayed until the issues of sovereign immunity, judicial
immunity, and abstention are resolved. Id. Defendants seek an
extension to respond to Plaintiff's
Motion to Certify for those same reasons.

The Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants' Motion for Extension
on December 28, 2022. Counsel for Defendant LaVoie and Judge Skeen
is currently out of the office and requests an extension to file a
reply in support of the Motion for Extension. Plaintiffs are
unopposed to the extension. The extension is not sought for delay.


A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 4, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GHYA8U at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Defendants Director Lavoie and Judge Skeen,
are:

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

The counsel for the Defendant, Smith County District Clerk Penny
Clarkston, are:

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

KIA AMERICA: Baker Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Michigan
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Brenda Baker, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai Motor
America, Case No. 1:22-cv-01239-JMB-PJG (W.D. Mich., Dec. 29,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability for
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Kia America, Inc. -- http://www.kiamedia.com/-- provides a wide
range of cars that meet your lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1700
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Phone: (312) 984-0000
          Fax: (212) 686-0114
          Email: malmstrom@whafh.com


KIA AMERICA: Winston Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marchae Winston, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Case No.
30-02022-01289406-CU-BT-CXC was removed from the Orange County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Dec. 29, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02329-FWS-KES to
the proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Other Fraud for Fraud.

Kia America, Inc. -- http://www.kiamedia.com/-- provides a wide
range of cars that meet your lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Gil Melili, Esq.
          Pamela Erin Prescott, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com
                 gil@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Jason A Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          321 N Mall Drive Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: jason@kazlg.com
                 pamela@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Seyed Masih Kazerouni, Esq.
          PRO INJURY ATTORNEYS, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (949) 751-9322
          Email: mk@proinjuryattorneys.com

               - and -

          Sina Rezvanpour, Esq.
          SINA REZ LAW PC
          401 Wilshire Boulevard Floor 12
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Phone: (818) 784-0100
          Fax: (818) 574-4049
          Email: sina.rez@sinarezlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kate Spelman, Esq.
          Alice S. Kim, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          515 South Flower Street Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246
          Phone: (213) 239-5100
          Fax: (213) 239-5199
          Email: KSpelman@jenner.com
                 akim@jenner.com


KRAFT HEINZ: Case Management, Sched Order Entered in Adams
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA ADAMS, v. THE KRAFT
HEINZ COMPANY, Case No. 5:22-cv-00290-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Gregory A. Presnell entered a case management and scheduling
order as follows:

  --  Class Discovery Deadline                July 3, 2023

  --  Plaintiff's Motion for Class            August 16, 2023
      Certification

  --  Defendant's Response                    October 16, 2023

  --  Plaintiff's Rebuttal                    November 14, 2023

The Court will issue a subsequent Case Management and Scheduling
Order once the class certification issue is resolved.

Kraft Heinz is an American multinational food company formed by the
merger of Kraft Foods and Heinz co-headquartered in Chicago and
Pittsburgh.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jTHr3j at no extra charge.[CC]

KRAFT HEINZ: Forbes Sues Over Mislabeled Apple Juice Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eboni Forbes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00007 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for fraud; unjust enrichment; breaches of
express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a
particular purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty; and for violations
of the New York General Business Law and the State Consumer Fraud
Acts.

Kraft Heinz Foods Company manufactures, markets, and sells apple
juice with "All Natural Ingredients" and "No Artificial Colors,
Flavors or Preservatives" under the Capri-Sun brand.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated consumers are misled because the label states, "No
Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives," even though the
product contains citric acid, an artificial ingredient which
fulfills numerous preservative functions. Instead of identifying
citric acid's function as a preservative or any of the other
examples provided, Defendant's parenthetical declaration that it is
used "FOR TARTNESS" is misleading and contrary to law, says the
suit.

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
product is sold at a premium price, $4.99 for ten six ounce
pouches, excluding tax and sales, the suit alleges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

LASTPASS US: Sued Over Failure to Safeguard Sensitive Data
----------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LASTPASS US LP Case No. 1:23-cv-10004-PBS (D. Mass.,
Jan. 3, 2023), is brought for damages against Defendant for its
failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding
highly sensitive consumer data in connection with a massive,
months-long data breach that began in August 2022 (the "Data
Breach") and impacted the highly sensitive data of potentially
millions of LastPass users, including Plaintiff and putative Class
members, resulting in the unauthorized public release and
subsequent misuse of their names, end-user names, billing
addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, IP addresses from
which customers were accessing the LastPass service, and customer
vault data where certain unencrypted data was stored, including
website usernames and passwords, secure notes, and form-filled data
(collectively, the "Private Information").

To the world of cybercriminals, LastPass users' Private
Information, including the vault data that was in LastPass's
possession at the time of the Data Breach, is extremely valuable.
By accessing Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information,
hackers can simply unlock the stolen vaults using the victims'
respective master passwords, which were likely stored by LastPass
and ultimately accessed by the bad actors and wreak financial havoc
on the lives of LastPass users like Plaintiff. The security of
LastPass customers' Private Information is, therefore, of the
utmost importance. LastPass understood and appreciated the value of
this Information yet chose to ignore it by failing to invest in
adequate data security measures that would protect Plaintiff and
the Class from the unauthorized access to, and copying of, their
Private Information.

With their Private Information now in the hands of cybercriminals
looking to profit from the theft, Plaintiff's and Class members'
Private Information is no longer secure and has already been
fraudulently misused, causing Plaintiff and members of the Class to
suffer (and continue to suffer) economic and non-economic harms, as
well as a substantial and imminent risk of future economic and
non-economic harms.

LastPass understands the serious nature of data breaches and the
potential theft and misuse of customers' highly sensitive
information resulting therefrom, and purports to address these
issues. However, even with this knowledge, LastPass's lax data
security measures led to the Data Breach and, as a result,
Plaintiff and Class members are no longer in possession of a secure
customer vault. Their Private Information is no longer hidden but
is, instead, in the hands of cybercriminals who have already
fraudulently misused such data. While the exact reason(s) for the
Data Breach remain unclear, there is no doubt that Defendant failed
to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class members' Private
Information and incorporate the tools necessary to keep such
Private Information safe; such negligent failures resulted in the
injuries.

Had Plaintiff and the Class known that the Private Information they
entrusted to Defendant in exchange for the services offered would
not be adequately protected, they would not have entrusted their
valuable Private Information to Defendant in order to use its
product. Thus, on behalf of the Class of victims also impacted by
the Data Breach, Plaintiff seeks, under state common law and
consumer protection statutes, to redress Defendant's misconduct,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Doe signed up to use LastPass in or around early May
of 2016.

LastPass is a global password and identity management solutions
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE, PC
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-742-9700
          Fax: 617-742-9701
          Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
          412 H Street, NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: 202-470-520
          Fax: 202-800-2730
          Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                 jrathod@classlawdc.com
                 tbean@classlawdc.com


MANTA SLEEP: Faces Fontanez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON FONTANEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANTA SLEEP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
150038/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Jan. 2, 2023) is a
class-action lawsuit challenging Defendant's discriminatory
business practices as its Website, mantasleep.com, allegedly
contained access barriers that prevented Plaintiff and other
visually impaired and/or legally blind individuals from purchasing
products thereon, in violation of the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff and the Class seek, inter alia, a preliminary and
permanent injunction, other declaratory relief, statutory damages,
actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expense.

The Defendant is an online retail company, who owns and/or operates
mantasleep.com. Through the Website, Defendant sells its products,
such as sleep masks and related sleep aid products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
          E-mail: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

MARIA PAPPAS: Bell Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maria Pappas. The
case is styled as Michael Bell, Michelle Kidd, Southwest Organizing
Project, Palenque Lsna, individually and on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Maria Pappas, in her capacity
as Treasurer of Cook County, Illinois, and Trustee of the Indemnity
Fund, Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 1:22-cv-07061 (N.D. Ill.,
Dec. 15, 2022).

The nature of suit Accommodations Civil Rights for the Civil Rights
Act.

Maria Pappas -- https://www.mariapappas.net/ -- is an American
attorney, Greek American, and politician who has served as the Cook
County Treasurer since 1998.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian D. Roche, Esq.
          William Seth Weltman, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 207-1000
          Email: broche@reedsmith.com
                 wweltman@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Charles Robert Watkins, Esq.
          GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
          805 Lake Street, #226
          Oak Park, IL 60301
          Phone: (312) 878-8391
          Fax: (205) 226-2357
          Email: charlesw@gseattorneys.com

               - and -

          Daniel Joshua Schneider, Esq.
          John Mark Bouman, Esq.
          Lawrence Davis Wood, Esq.
          LEGAL ACTION CHICAGO
          120 S. LaSalle St., Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 423-5941
          Email: dschneider@legalactionchicago.org
                 jbouman@legalactionchicago.org
                 lwood@legalactionchicago.org

MDL 2949: Parise Suit Consolidated in Hip Implant Product Row
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the case
captioned Parise v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:22-00324 (June 9, 2022, W.D. Wis.) to U.S. District Court for
the the Eastern District of Arkansas and, with the consent of that
court, assigned it to Judge Kristine G. Baker for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings in IN RE: PROFEMUR HIP IMPLANT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2949.

Parise moved to vacate the panel's order conditionally transferring
her action to MDL No. 2949 while defendants Microport Orthopedics,
Inc. and Wright Medical Technology, Inc., opposed the motion.

This action alleges that the design, marketing and performance of
the "Profemur" line of modular hip implants, including both
titanium femoral necks and those made of cobalt chromium, are prone
to micro-movements that lead to fluid ingress into the bore, which
leads to fretting and corrosion in the stem-neck junction, which in
turn leads to metallosis and increased blood metal levels and, at
times, fracture of the devices.

The panel contends that Parise's action falls within the MDL's
ambit because it involves injuries arising from the corrosion at
the stem-neck junction of an allegedly defective Profemur hip
implant. The plaintiff's primary argument against transfer was that
defendants do not intend to settle her claims because they arise
from an index surgery over ten years ago.  The panel said that
there is undisputed factual overlap between Parise and the MDL
actions and do not typically condition transfer upon a plaintiff's
predicted participation in a settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 13, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at bit.ly/3ZfTS9R

MDL 2973: Morrison Suit Consolidated in Elmiron Liability Row
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwel, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the case
captioned Morrison, et al. V. Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products
R&D, Inc., et al. (C.A. NO. 3:22−01074) from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, with the consent of that
court, assigned to Judge Brian R. Martinotti for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings in IN RE: ELMIRON (PENTOSAN
POLYSULFATE SODIUM) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2973.

Morrison moved to vacate the panel's order conditionally
transferring the action to MDL No. 2973 while defendants opposed
the motion. Plaintiff argued principally that federal jurisdiction
is lacking over their case, however, such jurisdictional objections
generally do not present an impediment to transfer and can be
presented to the transferee judge.

This action involves allegations concerning the propensity of the
drug "Elmiron," which is used to treat interstitial cystitis, a
chronic bladder condition where individuals experience a range of
symptoms from discomfort to debilitating pain, to cause retinal
injuries, notably atypical or pigmentary maculopathy. The panel
concludes that Morrison falls within the MDL's ambit because it
involves injuries arising from retinal injuries arising from the
use of Elmiron, as well as allegations that defendants failed to
warn of the risk of such injuries.

Plaintiffs have argued that their putative class claims under
California law are sufficiently unique to warrant exclusion from
the MDL, yet the panel held that several putative classes are
alleged in the over 1,700 Elmiron cases filed to date, and
efficiencies can be achieved by adding the putative California
class to their number. The transfer will help streamline such
discovery and the transferee judge can structure pretrial
proceedings to accommodate any unique challenges that the Morrison
action presents, rules the panel.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 13, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at bit.ly/3ZdoNTX

MDL 3014: 2 Suits Consolidated in Ventilator Product Liability Row
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned "In Re: Philips Recalled
CPAP, Bi-Level PAP and Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability
Litigation," MDL No. 3014, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transferred
one case each from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois and the District of Massachusetts to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Joy Flowers
Conti for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs moved to vacate the transfer order while defendants
opposed this motion. The actions here asserts overlapping claims
for violations of state consumer protection statutes, breach of
warranties and unjust enrichment arising from recalled ventilators
and the potential harm that can be caused by their alleged inherent
defect.

Plaintiffs argued that federal subject matter jurisdiction over
said case is lacking and the transferor court should decide their
pending remand motion before any transfer. But the panel held that
this is not an impediment to transfer. The panel found that the two
actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 3014, and that the transfer will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.

A full-text copy of the court's December 13, 2022 order is
available at bit.ly/3VN9XAE

MDL 3050: 8 Suits Consolidated in Chantix Product Liability Row
----------------------------------------------------------------
In litigations involving carcinogenic effects of smoking cessation
medications, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers two cases from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and
one case each from the Northern District of California, Southern
District of Florida, Southern District of Illinois, District of New
Jersey, Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Western District of
Pennsylvania all to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia and, with the consent of that court, assigned
to Judge Katherine Polk Failla for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in IN RE: CHANTIX (VARENICLINE) MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. II), MDL No.
3050.

These putative class actions present common factual questions
arising from allegations that Pfizer voluntarily recalled the
smoking cessation drug "Chantix" in 2021 after discovering that the
product contained a nitrosamine impurity known as
N-nitroso-varenicline, a probable human carcinogen. Plaintiffs in
all actions allege that they purchased or ingested Chantix
containing the impurities and, as a result, suffered economic
losses and require medical monitoring. The common factual questions
include: (1) the duration and levels of the alleged contamination
(2) whether the nitrosamine levels posed a safety risk to consumers
or made the products unfit for sale (3) whether Pfizer knew or
should have known that the products contained nitrosamines (4)
whether Pfizer was negligent in labeling, marketing, advertising,
manufacturing and selling the affected products and (5) the events
pertaining to the Pfizer recalls of Chantix and (6) the appropriate
measure of any damages.

The panel held that centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with
respect to class certification, and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

The panel concluded that the Southern District of New York is the
appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Defendant
Pfizer has its headquarters in this district, and represents that
common evidence and witnesses are located there. Three actions are
pending in or near this district.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 22, 2022 order is
available at https://bit.ly/3Im8dLG

MDL 3051: 6 Suits Consolidated in ARC Airbag Product Liability Row
------------------------------------------------------------------
In litigations involving defective airbag inflators, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transfers two cases from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama and one case each from the Northern
District of California, Northern District of Georgia, District of
South Carolina and the Western District of Tennessee all to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Eleanor L. Ross for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in IN RE: ARC
AIRBAG INFLATORS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3051.

Plaintiffs in MANN, ET AL. v. ARC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ET AL., C.A.
No. 1:22−03285, moved to centralize this litigation in the
Northern District of Georgia or, alternatively, the District of
South Carolina.

This litigation consists of six actions pending in five districts.
Since the filing of the motion, the panel has been notified of
eleven related actions in 10 districts. Plaintiffs in seven actions
and potential tag-along actions support the motion. Plaintiffs in
two potential tag-along actions support centralization in the
Northern District of Illinois or the Northern District of
California.  

Common defendant ARC Automotive, Inc. and General Motors LLC, which
is a defendant in twelve actions and potential tag-along actions,
support centralization. All remaining responding defendants except
FCA US LLC take no position or do not oppose centralization.

These putative class actions present common factual questions
arising from the allegation that ARC airbag inflators have a defect
that can cause them to rupture, dispersing shrapnel, and injuring
or killing vehicle occupants. Plaintiffs allege the remaining
defendants knew or should have known of the defect, and the recalls
issued to date by various vehicle manufacturer defendants have been
inadequate. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel and the judiciary.

The panel concluded that the Northern District of Georgia is the
appropriate transferee district. Many parties support
centralization in this district, where three actions already are
pending. It is relatively close to ARC's headquarters and in an
easily accessible, metropolitan location for this nationwide
litigation, it added.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 15, 2022 order is
available at bit.ly/3Ch4afZ

NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC: 2nd Amended Stipulated Sched Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BHK REALTY, LLC; THE PALE,
LLC d/b/a Buskers Pub; and THE BODHI SPA, LLC (Class
Representatives) v. THE NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC COMPANY d/b/a
NATIONAL GRID; NATIONAL GRID LNG LLC; NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE
COMPANY, INC; and ALGONQUIN GAS TRANSMISSION LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-00642-JJM-LDA (D.R.I.), the Court entered a second amended
stipulated scheduling order for class certification phase as
follows:

        Event            Track 1 Deadline       Track 2 Deadline

  Plaintiffs' Expert             N/A            January 6, 2023
  Disclosures

  Defendants' Expert             N/A            February 3, 2023
  Disclosures

  Close of Expert                N/A            March 10, 2023
  Discovery

  Plaintiffs' Deadline      January 13, 2023    April 7, 2023
  to file Class
  Certification Motion

  Defendants' Deadline      February 17, 2023   June 16, 2023
  for Opposition to
  Class Certification
  Motion

  Plaintiffs' Deadline      March 3, 2023       June 30, 2023
  for Reply in Support
  of Class Certification
  Motion

The Plaintiffs and Defendants The Narragansett Electric Company
d/b/a National Grid, National Grid LNG LLC, and Algonquin Gas
Transmission, LLC conferred on July 12, 2021, and the Court held a
scheduling conference on July 13, 2021.

This Scheduling Order establishes that this matter will proceed
with respect to determining class certification only at this time
and establishes the time periods and deadlines for the completion
of discovery and briefing on the question of class certification.
During this time, discovery will be limited to class certification
issues only, including expert discovery on class certification
related issues.

The parties shall be permitted to amend or alter any of the
deadlines set forth in this Scheduling Order upon agreement,
without prior approval by the Court. In the event any of these
deadlines are altered or amended, the parties shall submit a
stipulation notifying the Court of the change.

  -- Deadline for completion of fact discovery related to class
     certification/deadline to determine whether parties will
     introduce class certification experts -- December 10, 2022;

  -- The parties will inform one another whether they will
     introduce any expert witnesses on the class certification
     issues. If there will not be any class certification
     experts, the Class Certification Phase will proceed on
     Track 1 below. If there will be class certification
     experts, the Class Certification Phase will proceed on
     Track 2 below.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian R. Cunha, Esq.
          BRIAN CUNHA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          311 Pine Street
          Fall River, MA 02720
          Telephone: (508) 675-9500
          Facsimile: (508) 679-6360
          E-mail: brian@briancunha.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gerald J. Petros, Esq.
          David A. Wollin, Esq.
          Adam M. Ramos, Esq.
          Amanda A. Garganese, Esq.
          HINCKLEY ALLEN & SNYDER LLP
          100 Westminster Street, Suite 1500
          Providence, RI 02903-2319
          Telephone: (401) 274-2000
          Facsimile: (401) 277-9600
          E-mail: gpetros@hinckleyallen.com
                  aramos@hinckleyallen.com

                - and -

          Robert M. Duffy, Esq.
          Nicole J. Martucci, Esq.
          DUFFY & SWEENEY, LTD.
          321 South Main Street, Suite 400
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 455-0700
          Facsimile:  (401) 457-1802
          E-mail: rduffy@duffysweeney.com
                  nmartucci@duffysweeney.com

NATIONAL RECOVERY: Grosse Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Recovery
Agency. The case is styled as William Grosse, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Recovery Agency
doing business as: NRA Group, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02083-JPW (M.D.
Pa., Dec. 31, 2022).

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

National Recovery Agency -- https://www.nationalrecovery.com/ -- is
a nationwide provider of accounts receivable management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott H. Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT H. BERNSTEIN, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway, Ste. 300
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (203) 246-2887
          Email: scott@scottbernsteinlaw.com


NYREV INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nyrev, Inc. The case
is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Nyrev, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00003
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 1, 2023).

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

Nyrev, Inc. specializes in manufacturing - magazines.[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


OLIVE GARDEN: Despres Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Chloe Despres and Lacey Mitchell, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. OLIVE GARDEN HOLDINGS,
LLC and DARDEN CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-10013 (D. Mass., Jan.
3, 2023), is brought implicating the Defendants' violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act's ("FLSA") tip credit requirements and the
subsequent underpayment of their employees at the federally
mandated minimum wage rate, as well as Defendants' violations of
the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Law.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and all similarly
situated workers their earned minimum wages. The Defendants pay
their tipped employees, including servers and bartenders, below the
minimum wage rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provisions
of the FLSA and, in Massachusetts, the MFWL.

The Defendants failed to correctly inform the Plaintiffs of the
desire to rely on the tip credit to meet their minimum wage
obligations. Defendants failed to properly inform Plaintiffs of the
following: the amount of the cash wage that is to be paid to the
tipped employee; the amount by which the wages of the tipped
employee are increased on account of the tip credit; that all tips
received by the employee must be retained by the employee; and that
the tip credit shall not apply to any employee who does not receive
the notice.

The Plaintiffs were required to purchase certain clothing to work
for Defendants, which reduced their wages below the minimum hourly
wage required for tipped employees. The Plaintiffs were required to
perform improper types, and excessive amounts, of non-tipped work.
The Plaintiffs were required to perform greater than 20% of their
time or for more than 30 consecutive minutes in a shift performing
non-tip producing side work.

As a result of these violations, the Defendants have lost the
ability to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate the
Plaintiffs and all similarly situated workers at the full minimum
wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, and for all hours
worked. In other words, the Defendants must account for the
difference between the wages paid to the Plaintiffs and all
similarly situated workers and the minimum wage rate, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants at the Olive Garden.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of restaurants under the
trade name "Olive Garden" throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnold. J. Lizana, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III, P.C.
          1350 Main Street, Suite 302
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Phone: (877) 443-0999
          Email: alizana@attorneylizana.com

               - and -

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 523-0001
          Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
                 whogg@hftrialfirm.com


PATTERN ENERGY: Judge Recommends Approval of Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE PATTERN ENERGY GROUP INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00275-MN-JLH (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge
Jennifer L. Hall recommends granting the motion to certify class:


   "all persons and entities who held Class A common stock of
   Pattern Energy Group Inc. as of the January 31, 2020 record
   date for the merger with Canada Pension Plan Investment
   Board ("Merger"), were entitled to vote on the Merger, and
   received the Merger consideration; excluding Defendants,
   their immediate families and trusts and investment vehicles
   operated by them or for their benefit, and excluding
   Riverstone Holdings LLC and its affiliates, CBRE Caledon
   Capital Management and its affiliates, the Public Sector
   Pension Investment Board and its affiliates, and any person
   or entity that received a legal or beneficial ownership
   interest in the surviving new entity that emerged from the
   Merger."

   -- Class Findings

      The Water Island Funds satisfy the prerequisites for a
      class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a),
      (b) (3), and Defendants' challenges to adequacy and
      predominance of common issues over potential individual
      issues do not preclude certification at this stage.

   -- Class Representatives

      Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Water Island
      Funds adequately represent the class, and they should be
      certified as the class representatives.

   -- Class Counsel

      The Water Island Funds' counsel Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
      is authorized to act as lead class counsel on behalf of
      the Class, along with liaison class counsel Farnan LLP and
      additional counsel Susman Godfrey L.L.P., with respect to
      all acts required by, or necessary to be taken under, the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Orders.

   -- Class Notice

      Counsel shall meet and confer regarding appropriate notice
      to the class.

A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Jan. 3, 2022 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZcZpO9 at no
extra charge.[CC]

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Oral Argument Hearing Set for Feb. 28
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC FISHON, et al., v.
PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11711-LJL (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order seeting oral
argument hearing from the parties regarding Plaintiffs' pending
motion for class certification and Defendant's pending motion to
exclude the reports and testimony of Plaintiffs' experts on
February 28, 2023 at 2:00 P.M.

The hearing will be held in-person in Courtroom 15C, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, New York.

Peloton is an American exercise equipment and media company based
in New York City.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VN70A7 at no extra charge.[CC]

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Watson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELISSA WATSON, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:22-203-DCR (E.D.
Ky.), Judge Danny C. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, grants
in part and denies in part Progressive's motion to dismiss Watson's
Complaint.

Watson totaled her car in May 2021. She then filed a claim seeking
to recover her losses with her insurer, Progressive. Progressive
deemed her car to be a total loss and paid her $7,228.73 to settle
the claim. But Watson sued, claiming that Progressive paid her less
than what she was owed, violating both her insurance policy and
Kentucky law.

Watson crashed her 2013 Volkswagen Beetle on May 26, 2021. She
filed a claim with Progressive the following day, reporting that
the car suffered damage from the collision. Progressive determined
that Watson's car was a "total loss" under her insurance policy.

Progressive contracts with Mitchell International, Inc., to
calculate the ACV of a vehicle that is determined to be a total
loss. It calculated the ACV of Watson's vehicle pursuant to the
policy and sent Watson a "Vehicle Valuation Report" on June 2,
2021, explaining the amount that she was owed. Applying Mitchell's
five-step process, the report first identifies three comparable
Volkswagen Beetles with list prices of $12,000 (Vehicle 1), $11,975
(Vehicle 2), and $15,428.00 (Vehicle 3).

After averaging the adjusted values of the three comparable
vehicles, the report states that the base vehicle value of Watson's
car was $8,309.28. Finally, after subtracting $80.55 for fees
related to the condition of her vehicle and $1,000 for her
deductible from the base vehicle value, the report concluded that
Progressive owed Watson a settlement of $7,228.73. Without the
Projected Sold Adjustment ("PSA") deductions, Watson would have
received an ACV payment that was $904.33 higher than the payment
that she received. Watson accepted the settlement.

Watson filed a purported class action Complaint on Aug. 4, 2022.
She asserts four counts for relief against Progressive in her
Amended Complaint, all involving Progressive's application of the
PSA in her Vehicle Valuation Report. In Count 1, she claims that
Progressive violated the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act ("KCPA")
by "failing to disclose material facts regarding its application of
an arbitrary PSA to comparable vehicles in order to reduce their
market value" and "misrepresenting material facts regarding its
application of an arbitrary PSA." She also asserts a breach of
contract claim (Count 2), contending that Progressive violated her
insurance policy by applying the PSA which resulted in the
defendant's paying her "less than her vehicle's ACV required by the
insurance contract."

Watson also claims that Progressive breached the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing by unreasonably exercising its discretion in
calculating the ACV of her vehicle when it "intentionally invented
and applied PSA's to undervalue comparable vehicles" (Count 3).
Finally, in Count 4 of the Amended Complaint Watson seeks a
declaratory judgment that Progressive's application of unfounded
PSA's results in a valuation of less than the ACV Progressive is
required under its insurance contracts to pay insureds.

Progressive has filed a motion to dismiss Watson's Complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Watson first claims that Progressive violated her rights under the
KCPA by engaging in one or more deceptive business practices.
Progressive argues that Watson's KCPA claim should be dismissed
because it does not meet the heightened pleading requirements of
Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Reeves opines that Watson has sufficiently pleaded a
misrepresentation claim under the KCPA. He says Watson has pleaded
a violation of the KCPA with sufficient specificity. Progressive's
claim that it cannot be held liable under the KCPA because it fully
disclosed the PSA in Watson's policy fails.

However, Judge Reeves agrees with Progressive that Watson has
failed to state a claim under the KCPA for unfair business
practices. Watson has failed to allege that Progressive's
calculation and application of the PSA are unconscionable. Because
Watson remained "perfectly capable" of challenging her settlement
offer, she cannot claim that Progressive's actions regarding the
offer were unconscionable.

Progressive next argues that Watson's breach of contract claim
(Count 2) should be dismissed. In Count 2, Watson claims that
Progressive breached her insurance contract by paying her "less
than the vehicle's ACV" after applying "improper and unfounded
PSA's in Mitchell vehicle valuation reports."

Judge Reeves holds that Progressive's arguments to dismiss this
claim are unavailing. First, Progressive's reliance on Kentucky's
Total-Loss Regulation is misplaced. Relatedly, its claim that
Watson agreed to the use of a third-party software system to
calculate the ACV in her insurance contract is irrelevant. Finally,
Progressive's argument that Watson is precluded from asserting a
breach of contract claim because she did not challenge her
settlement offer either under the terms of her insurance policy or
under Kentucky's Total Loss Regulation fails. In short, Watson has
sufficiently pleaded that Progressive breached her insurance policy
when it paid her less than her vehicle's ACV.

Watson alleges in Count 3 that Progressive violated the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing by exercising its
discretion unreasonably and in a manner that was arbitrary and
capricious through its calculation of the ACV of her vehicle.

JUdge Reeves finds that Watson did not specify in her Complaint
whether her claim sounds in tort or in contract. Hence, her claim
will be dismissed to the extent that it sounds in tort law.
Moreover, all but one of Watson's claims under Count 3 are
duplicative of her breach of contract claim. Watson has plausibly
alleged that Progressive abused its discretion in calculating the
ACV by failing to investigate the PSA.

Finally, in Count 4, Watson seeks a declaration that Progressive
breaches the terms of its insurance policy by baing the valuation
and payment of claims on values of comparable vehicles that have
been reduced by factually erroneous PSA's. Progressive argues that
the Plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim should be dismissed for
lack of standing.

Judge Reeves opines that Watson's claim fails because she has not
pleaded a request for prospective relief. And even if Watson could
demonstrate an injury in fact, Progressive correctly notes that her
claim for declaratory relief should be dismissed as duplicative of
her breach of contract claim.

For these reasons, Judge Reeves grants in part and denies in part
Progressive's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Watson has sufficiently pleaded a claim for relief under the KCPA
(Count 1) by alleging that Progressive deceived consumers by
misrepresenting and failing to disclose the nature and application
of the PSA. Watson has also sufficiently pleaded a breach of
contract claim (Count 2) by stating that Progressive violated the
terms of its insurance policy when it paid her $904.33 less than
the ACV of her vehicle. Her claim that Progressive violated the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count 3) is barred
as duplicative of her breach of contract claim, except for her
allegation that Progressive failed to properly research the PSA.
Finally, Watson's claim for a declaratory judgment (Count 4) fails
and will be dismissed because Watson lacks standing to seek
prospective relief.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yjy7se97 from
Leagle.com.


PURDUE FEDERAL: Grant of Arbitration Bid in Neal Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jeffery Neal, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Purdue Federal Credit
Union, Appellee-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-PL-762
(Ind. App.), the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirms the trial
court's order granting the Appellee-Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration.

A member of Purdue Federal Credit Union (PFCU) filed a proposed
class-action complaint against PFCU regarding overdraft fees. Neal
later replaced that member as the Plaintiff and filed his own
complaint.

Purdue Federal Credit Union (PFCU) is a member-owned,
not-for-profit cooperative and financial institution, which
provides account and loan services to its members. In September
2019, PFCU member Noah Shoaf filed a proposed class-action
complaint alleging that PFCU improperly assessed and collected
overdraft fees on its deposit accounts. In his amended complaint,
which was filed in January 2020, Shoaf acknowledged that his
checking account with PFCU was governed by a membership and account
agreement.

In January 2020, PFCU mailed o its members their respective
December 2019 month and quarterly end statements. Included with the
statement was the Arbitration Provision. In March 2020, PFCU filed
an answer to Shoaf's amended complaint, in which PFCU did not
invoke the Arbitration Provision.

On Dec. 18, 2020, Neal, who is also a PFCU member, filed a motion
to intervene as a substitute class representative and for leave to
amend the complaint. The motion stated that Shoaf, who never filed
a motion to certify a class, wished to withdraw as class
representative. On Dec. 22, 2020, the trial court gave PFCU 30 days
to object to Neal's motion. On Jan. 21, 2021, PFCU filed a notice
that it had no objection. On Feb. 1, 2021, Neal filed his
complaint, designated as a second amended complaint, in which he
acknowledged that his checking account with PFCU was governed by
the Account Agreement; he did not (and does not) claim that he was
unaware of any of its terms.

On March 10, 2021, PFCU filed a motion to compel arbitration,
asserting that Neal accepted PFCU's offer to arbitrate by failing
to opt out of the Arbitration Provision. Neal filed a response in
opposition, asserting that no enforceable arbitration agreement
existed and that PFCU had "waived its right to arbitrate by
continuing to litigate in court for over a year and by consenting
to" the filing of his complaint.

The trial court held a hearing on the motion, during which Neal's
counsel stated that the fact that Neal received the notice of the
Arbitration Provision was "undisputed," but that the effectiveness
of that notice was in dispute. In February 2022, the trial court
issued an order granting PFCU's motion to compel and staying the
proceedings.

Neal now appeals. First, he asserts that PFCU affirmatively waived
any right to compel arbitration by litigating the case for more
than a year and affirmatively consenting to the filing of his
complaint.

The Court of Appeals disagrees. PFCU litigated the case for more
than a year against Shoaf, but PFCU filed its motion to compel
arbitration less than six weeks after Neal replaced Shoaf as the
plaintiff and filed his own complaint. The Court of Appeals concurs
with PFCU's assertion that while Shoaf was the plaintiff, only his
individual rights and obligations were at issue, and not Neal's.
Therefore, nothing that actually happened before Neal became a
plaintiff would serve as evidence of any waiver of PFCU's right to
arbitrate against Neal.

Moreover, neither Shoaf nor Neal ever sought to certify a class,
and Neal cites no authority for the proposition that consenting to
the substitution of a plaintiff constitutes a waiver of any
potential defenses against the new plaintiff. In sum, even if PFCU
acted inconsistently with any right it might have had to compel
arbitration with Shoaf, the same cannot be said about Neal.

The Court of Appeals now addresses Neal's argument that PFCU failed
to meet its burden of proving a valid agreement to arbitrate in the
first place. It disagrees with Neal. PFCU and Neal had previous
dealings that resulted in the execution of the Account Agreement,
which provided that its terms were subject to change at any time,
that PFCU would notify Neal of any changes, and that any disputes
regarding the agreement would be resolved by legal action in
Tippecanoe County. PFCU's offer to change the dispute-resolution
portion of the agreement explicitly stated that assent to the
Arbitration Provision may be manifested by silence or inaction, and
that Neal could opt out of the provision by giving written notice
within 30 days without having to close his account. Under these
circumstances, the Court of Appeals concludes that it was
reasonable that Neal should have notified PFCU if he did not intend
to accept the offer, and that Neal accepted the offer by remaining
silent and inactive past the deadline.

Finally, the Court of Appeals addresses Neal's claim that PFCU's
proposal to amend the Account Agreement with the Arbitration
Provision violated a duty of good faith and fair dealing. It
rejects Neal's characterization of the Arbitration Provision as
"unilateral," given that he could have opted out of it without
closing his account. Neal also cites no binding precedent for the
proposition that Indiana credit unions owe potential or existing
members a duty of good faith and fair dealing in forming a
contract. Nor does he cite any binding precedent for the related
assertion that PFCU had a duty to inform him and its other members
of Shoaf's proposed class action, for which no class was ever
certified.

Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial
court's grant of PFCU's motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/33rvs6cd from Leagle.com.

Lynn A. Toops -- LTOOPS@COHENANDMALAD.COM -- Vess A. Miller --
VMILLER@COHENANDMALAD.COM -- Lisa LaFornara --
LLAFORNARA@COHENANDMALAD.COM -- Tyler Ewigleben, Cohen & Malad,
LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for the Appellant.

James R. Branit -- Branit@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Phillip G.
Litchfield -- LitchfieldP@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo
LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Attorneys for the Appellee.


QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Malriat Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
QuantumScape Corporation, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated December 19, 2022 entered in the lawsuit
entitled JOSEPH MALRIAT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION F/K/A KENSINGTON
CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORP., and JAGDEEP SINGH, Case No.
3:21-cv-00058, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The lawsuit is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
QuantumScape securities between December 8, 2020 and December 31,
2020, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants'
issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge William H.
Orrick entered an order on December 19, 2022, certifying a class
defined as "investors that purchased QuantumScape stock during the
class period and who say they were injured based on the alleged
misrepresentations and subsequent fall in stock prices.  The Court
further appointed class representatives and class counsel.

Judge Orrick ruled that the Plaintiffs meet the predominance
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b). The Defendants do not
contest whether a class action is superior to other available
methods of litigation. Here, the Class Members' interests in
individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate
action, the extent that other similar litigation has begun, the
desirability of concentrating the litigation in this forum, and the
likely difficulties in managing a class action all favor class
litigation, the court added.

The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Malriat, et al. v.
QuantumScape Corporation, et al., Case No. 23-80000, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Jan. 3,
2023.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners QuantumScape Corporation, Jagdeep Singh,
Timothy Holme, and Kevin Hettrich are represented by:

          Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
          Dale R. Bish, Esq.
          Rebecca L. Epstein, Esq.
          Andrew Frantela, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
           PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
          E-mail: isalceda@wsgr.com
                 dbish@wsgr.com
                 bepstein@wsgr.com
                 afrantela@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Paul N. Harold, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
           PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1700 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 973-8800
          Facsimile: (202) 973-8899
          E-mail: pharold@wsgr.com  

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

          Nicholas Ian Porritt, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street NW Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com

               - and -

          Adam Marc Apton, Esq.
          Adam Christopher McCall, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          75 Broadway, Suite 202  
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 373-1671
          Email: aapton@zlk.com
                 amccall@zlk.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1111 Summer Street Suite 403
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 992-4523
          E-mail: gpotrepka@zlk.com

               - and -

          Shannon L. Hopkins
          Max Edward Weiss, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (917) 923-4004
          E-mail: mweiss@zlk.com
                  shopkins@zlk.com

RADIUS GLOBAL: Snyder Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Heather Snyder, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radius Global
Solutions LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-11009 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 31, 2022).

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

Radius Global Solutions -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ -- is a
leading provider of accounts receivable, customer relations and
revenue cycle management solutions.[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


RAEL INC: Blansette Sues Over Deceptive and Misleading Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Blansette, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. RAEL, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00006-DMR (N.D. Cal., Jan.
3, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendant's deceptive and
misleading practices with respect to its marketing and sale of its
cosmetic, hygiene, and beauty products (collectively, the "Product"
or "Products").

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells its Products
throughout the United States including the State of California.
Rael was launched in 2017 with the goal of providing "natural and
organic feminine care products." Despite the representations made
on the Products' labels, marketing, and advertising which lead
reasonable consumers to believe that the Products are "natural,"
they are not. The brand has grown significantly, and this growth
was not by accident. Rather, it developed from specifically
targeting the "natural" market with intense focus.

The Defendant's marketing efforts stress the purported "natural"
composition of their Products. Notably, the principal display panel
of all of the Products states "Natural." The word "Natural" is a
representation to a reasonable consumer that the Product contains
only natural ingredients. This represents that the Product is
"natural" to consumers. Reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff,
interpret "natural" to mean that the product does not include
synthetic ingredients.

Despite this representation, the Products are not natural because
they include multiple synthetic ingredients. Specifically, the
Products contain the following synthetic ingredients:
Phenoxyethanol, Polysorbate 20, Sodium Benzoate, Citric Acid,
Caprylyl Glycol, Ethylhexylglycerin, 1,2-Hexanediol, and Butylene
Glycol.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated relied on Defendant's
misrepresentations that the Products are "natural" when purchasing
the Products. This deception is not limited to the Products'
labels, and rather, it is omnipresent throughout Defendant's
marketing efforts, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of California who purchased the
Products.

The Defendant produces, markets and distributes the Products in
retail stores across the United States including stores physically
located in the State of California and this District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
          GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
          2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (310) 274-4663
          Email: jrg@ggallp.com

               - and -

          Amir Shenaq, Esq.
          SHENAQ PC
          3500 Lenox Road, Ste. 1500
          Atlanta GA 30326
          Phone: (888) 909-9993
          Email: amir@shenaqpc.com

               - and -

          Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
          THE KEETON FIRM LLC
          100 S Commons, Ste 102
          Pittsburgh PA 15212
          Phone: (888) 412-5291
          Email: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com


RAPID INVESTMENTS: Denial of Arbitration in Reichert Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY REICHERT; GARY MOYER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
RAPID INVESTMENTS, INC., DBA Access Freedom, DBA Rapid Financial
Solutions; CACHE VALLEY BANK, Defendants-Appellants, and KEEFE
COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC, DBA Access Corrections, Defendant, Case
No. 21-35530 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirms the district court's order denying Rapid's motion
to compel arbitration.

Moyer was incarcerated in the Kitsap County, Washington jail in May
and December 2017 and February 2018. In accord with Washington law,
his cash was confiscated by jail officers each time he was booked.
Upon his release, Moyer received a debit card, known as a "release
card,"  issued and serviced, respectively, by Defendants Cache
Valley Bank and Rapid Investments, Inc. (collectively, "Rapid"),
with a balance of $14.62 in May 2017, $40 in December 2017, and
$95.26 in February 2018. Moyer was not provided an option to
receive his money in any other form. In February 2018, a guard
specifically instructed Moyer that if he wanted his money back, he
needed to take the card.

Moyer received the Account Agreement for the February 2018 card;
whether he also read it on the earlier occasions is not clear.
Rapid entered two substantially similar cardholder agreements into
evidence -- one in use as of June 2016 and one that went into
effect in February 2018. The record is not conclusive as to which
of these agreements Moyer received with his February 2018 card.
Both agreements also have a section governing "Cancellation and
Suspension," but with slightly different provisions. The later
(February 2018) Agreement contains identical language as to
cancellation, but the fee for closing the account with check
disbursement is $0. Both versions of the Agreement contain
arbitration provisions.

The cards, which Moyer did not request and to which no alternative
was offered, were delivered to Moyer pre-activated, and in two of
the three instances began to charge maintenance fees before Moyer
conducted a single transaction. After his third release, Moyer used
the release card the day it was issued to him to withdraw the bulk
of his balance from an ATM machine.

The lawsuit leading to this appeal was filed as a putative class
action by Reichert. Like Moyer, Reichert received a Rapid debit
card upon his release from the Kitsap County Jail. Unlike Moyer, he
denied having received any cardmember agreement with his card.
Moyer represents both a Washington class and a national class. He
claims that Rapid's debit cards carry fees that violate the federal
Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Washington state law.

Rapid moved to compel arbitration because the classwide damages
requested exceed the $15,000 threshold contained in the arbitration
agreement. Noting that Reichert claimed not to have received the
Agreement containing the arbitration clause, the district court
denied the motion. Reichert then moved to certify a class. The
district court granted the motion but conditioned class
certification on the addition of a plaintiff who had received the
Agreement. Moyer was added as a named plaintiff to satisfy that
condition.

Rapid moved to compel arbitration of Moyer's claims. The district
court denied the motion for the reasons recited in the Court's
prior Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration. The court found
that Moyer's claims were identical to Reichert's "in all material
respects."

Rapid appealed, and another panel of the Ninth Circuit held that it
was unclear whether the district court properly considered all
relevant facts and circumstances specific to Moyer -- particularly
because there was no declaration from Moyer in the record. It
vacated the district court's order denying the motion to compel
arbitration and remanded the case, declining to express any views
on whether a valid, enforceable agreement exists.

On remand, the district court focused on whether Moyer had accepted
an offer to enter into the Agreement, concluding that Moyer's use
of the card did not constitute assent to the contract. It court
reasoned that under Washington law, neither Moyer's silence nor his
failure to cancel the card according to the terms of the Agreement
could be considered an acceptance.

Based on that reasoning, the district court denied the motion to
compel arbitration. Rapid timely appealed.

The Ninth Circuit concentrates on the February 2018 transaction
because in only that instance is it undisputed that Moyer received
an Agreement with the release card. Rapid argues that the district
court erred in determining that Moyer's retention and use of the
release cards did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, his intent
to accept the terms of the Agreement, including the arbitration
clause.

The Ninth Circuit disagrees. It opines that Moyer's retention of
the release card, prior to use, cannot constitute assent to the
Agreement. Nor was Moyer under a duty to act -- the "exceptional"
circumstance in which silence or inaction may constitute
acceptance. Because Moyer's receipt and retention of the release
card did not objectively manifest assent, no contract was formed at
the time Moyer exited the jail with the card or when he retained
the card prior to use.

The Ninth Circuit next considers whether Moyer's subsequent use of
the card to withdraw funds, while remaining silent, constituted
assent to those terms, including the arbitration provisions. It
holds that because the money Moyer withdrew was his own, because
the card he was issued came pre-activated and there was no other
way to obtain immediate use of his own funds, and because Rapid
structured its fees to begin deducting after three days regardless
of use, Moyer's decision to withdraw his own money cannot
reasonably be understood to manifest assent to the contract.

Because Moyer did not assent to the Agreement through either his
receipt or his use of the release card, no contract was formed. The
Nin th Circuit does not consider whether the contract fails for
lack of consideration.

In sum, the Ninth Circuit holds that Moyer did not agree to the
cardholder agreement or its mandatory arbitration clause. Because
acceptance is an issue of contract formation, it requires judicial
resolution. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirms the district
court's order denying Rapid's motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/fpr2cn2w from Leagle.com.

George F. Verschelden (argued) -- george.verschelden@stinson.com --
Stinson LLP, Kansas City, Missouri; Emily J. Harris --
eharris@corrcronin.com -- Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner Fogg &
Moore LLP, Seattle, Washington, for the Defendants-Appellants.

Chris R. Youtz (argued) --  info@sylaw.com -- Richard E.
Spoonemore, and Eleanor Hamburger, Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore
Hamburger PLLC, Seattle, Washington; Masimba Mutamba, Palm Beach
County Attorney's Office, West Palm Beach, Florida, for the
Plaintiffs-Appellees.


REALPAGE INC: Kramer Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Rental Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Kramer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; ALLIED ORION GROUP, LLC; AVALONBAY
COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BELL PARTNERS, INC.;
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; CUSHMAN &
WAKEFIELD, INC.; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS,
LLC; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; and UDR, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-03835 (D.D.C., Dec. 29, 2022), is brought arising from the
Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
rental housing prices in the Greater Washington, D.C. Metro Area
and to recover treble damages, injunctive relief, and other relief
as appropriate, based on the Defendants' violations of federal
antitrust laws.

The Defendants are RealPage, Inc., the developer of a software
platform called "AI Revenue Management" (previously known as
"YieldStar"), and several managers of large-scale residential
apartment buildings that used RealPage's software platform to
coordinate and agree upon rental housing pricing, among other
things, in the Greater Washington, D.C. Metro Area.

AI Revenue Management works by collecting vast amounts of
non-public data from its client property managers regarding lease
transactions, rent prices, occupancy levels, and virtually every
other possible data point that drives rent. This data is fed into
an algorithm, along with additional data collected from Defendant
RealPage's myriad of other data-analytics and rental-management
software products. RealPage's algorithm uses that data to generate
a rental price for each of RealPage's client's available units,
which is updated daily. RealPage makes sure all of its clients know
that to maximize revenues, they must accept the software's rental
price at least 80%-90% of the time, and RealPage's "Revenue
Management Advisors" monitor clients' compliance with that
recommendation. RealPage and the property managers who use its
revenue management services constitute a price fixing cartel, and
the revenue growth they have achieved is possible only through
coordinated price setting.

With the assurance that their competitors are setting Washington,
D.C. rental prices using the same algorithm, each Defendant
property manager could allow a larger share of their units to
remain vacant while maintaining higher rental prices across their
properties. This increased their revenue at the expense of renters.
The Defendants' strategy only succeeded because of the pricing
coordination among competing property managers enabled by this
cartel. Knowing this, Defendant RealPage repeatedly and explicitly
emphasizes that for the software to work properly, everyone needs
to accept its suggested price at least 80%-90% of the time.

First, by allowing property managers to outsource their
rent-setting process, RealPage causes them to consider higher rent
prices than they ever would have before. In the words of an
executive at one of RealPage's major clients: "The beauty of
YieldStar is that it pushes you to go places that you wouldn't have
gone if you weren't using it. Second, Defendant RealPage polices
cartel members by applying heavy pressure on them to accept the
algorithm's suggested price at least 80%-90% of the time. The AI
Revenue Management service includes more than its rent-setting
algorithm. Third, the software also recommends lease renewal dates
for its clients' properties. Using Defendant RealPage's vast store
of data on lease transactions, the algorithm suggests dates that
are staggered to avoid temporary periods of oversupply resulting
from the natural ebb and flow of the market. This further reduces
the incentive for property managers to undercut would-be
competitors, which is the strongest during these temporary
oversupply periods. Fourth, Defendant RealPage facilitates direct
information exchanges between competitors and provides
opportunities for direct coordination of prices. It hosts online
forums, organizes in-person events for its clients and maintains
standing committees of cartel members to advise on pricing
strategy.

As the property managers acknowledge, they are competitors. Yet,
RealPage's clients shared a common goal of increasing rent prices
across the board and understood that RealPage--which has been
explicit that its aim is to help its clients "outperform the market
by 3% to 7%"--was the means by which to do it. The Defendants'
price-fixing conspiracy is a per se unlawful restraint of trade
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It has resulted in artificially
inflated rent prices and a diminished supply of rental units in the
Greater Washington, D.C. Metro Area. Plaintiff and the Class, who
rent in the Greater Washington, D.C. Metro Area from property
managers that use RealPage's software, paid significant overcharges
on rent and suffered harm from the reduced availability of rental
units they could reasonably afford, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff rented a residential unit in a property managed by
Lessor Defendant AvalonBay, Inc., named Avalon First and M in the
District of Columbia, beginning in 2019 through 2021.

RealPage provides software and services to managers of residential
rental apartments, including the YieldStar/AI Revenue Management
software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian P. Levis, Esq.
          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Peter Demato, Esq.
          Radhika Gupta, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Fax: (914) 997-0035
          Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
                 clevis@lowey.com
                 pdemato@lowey.com
                 rgupta@lowey.com

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          Patrick McGahan, Esq.
          Michael Srodoski, Esq.
          G. Dustin Foster, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06145
          Phone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          Email: david.scott@scott-scott.com
                 pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
                 msrodoski@scott-scott.com
                 gfoster@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
          Stacey Slaughter, Esq.
          Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq.
          J. Austin Hurt, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          Email: tundlin@robinskaplan.com
                 sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
                 gkozen@robinskaplan.com
                 ahurt@robinskaplan.com


REALPAGE INC: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Rental Housing Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Precht, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC;
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.: LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY; PEABODY
PROPERTIES, INC.; WINNCOMPANIES LLC AND WINNRESIDENTIAL MANAGER
CORP.; UDR, INC.; SHP MANAGEMENT CORP.; THE RELATED COMPANIES,
INC.; and SIMPSON PROPERTY GROUP, LLLP, Case No. 1:22-cv-12230 (D.
Mass., Dec. 29, 2022), is brought arising from the Defendants'
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize rental housing
prices in the Greater Boston Metro Area and to recover treble
damages, injunctive relief, and other relief as appropriate, based
on the Defendants' violations of federal and state antitrust laws.

The Defendants are RealPage, Inc., the developer of a software
platform called "AI Revenue Management" (previously known as
"YieldStar"), and several managers of large-scale residential
apartment buildings that used RealPage's software platform to
coordinate and agree upon rental housing pricing, among other
things, in the Greater Boston Metro Area.

AI Revenue Management works by collecting vast amounts of
non-public data from its client property managers regarding lease
transactions, rent prices, occupancy levels, and virtually every
other possible data point that drives rent. This data is fed into
an algorithm, along with additional data collected from Defendant
RealPage's myriad of other data-analytics and rental-management
software products. RealPage's algorithm uses that data to generate
a rental price for each of RealPage's client's available units,
which is updated daily. RealPage makes sure all of its clients know
that to maximize revenues, they must accept the software's rental
price at least 80%-90% of the time, and RealPage's "Revenue
Management Advisors" monitor clients' compliance with that
recommendation. RealPage and the property managers who use its
revenue management services constitute a price fixing cartel, and
the revenue growth they have achieved is possible only through
coordinated price setting.

With the assurance that their competitors are setting Washington,
D.C. rental prices using the same algorithm, each Defendant
property manager could allow a larger share of their units to
remain vacant while maintaining higher rental prices across their
properties. This increased their revenue at the expense of renters.
The Defendants' strategy only succeeded because of the pricing
coordination among competing property managers enabled by this
cartel. Knowing this, Defendant RealPage repeatedly and explicitly
emphasizes that for the software to work properly, everyone needs
to accept its suggested price at least 80%-90% of the time.

First, by allowing property managers to outsource their
rent-setting process, RealPage causes them to consider higher rent
prices than they ever would have before. In the words of an
executive at one of RealPage's major clients: "The beauty of
YieldStar is that it pushes you to go places that you wouldn't have
gone if you weren't using it." Second, Defendant RealPage polices
cartel members by applying heavy pressure on them to accept the
algorithm's suggested price at least 80%-90% of the time. The AI
Revenue Management service includes more than its rent-setting
algorithm. Third, the software also recommends lease renewal dates
for its clients' properties. Using Defendant RealPage's vast store
of data on lease transactions, the algorithm suggests dates that
are staggered to avoid temporary periods of oversupply resulting
from the natural ebb and flow of the market. This further reduces
the incentive for property managers to undercut would-be
competitors, which is the strongest during these temporary
oversupply periods. Fourth, Defendant RealPage facilitates direct
information exchanges between competitors and provides
opportunities for direct coordination of prices. It hosts online
forums, organizes in-person events for its clients and maintains
standing committees of cartel members to advise on pricing
strategy.

As the property managers acknowledge, they are competitors. Yet,
RealPage's clients shared a common goal of increasing rent prices
across the board and understood that RealPage--which has been
explicit that its aim is to help its clients "outperform the market
by 3% to 7%"--was the means by which to do it. The Defendants'
price fixing conspiracy is a per se unlawful restraint of trade
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It has resulted in artificially
inflated rent prices and a diminished supply of rental units in the
Greater Boston Metro Area. The Plaintiff and the Class, who rent in
the Greater Boston Metro Area from property managers that use
RealPage's software, paid significant overcharges on rent and
suffered harm from the reduced availability of rental units they
could reasonably afford, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has rented a residential unit in a property known as
Avalon Acton in Acton, Massachusetts from 2019 through the date of
this filing.

RealPage provides software and services to managers of residential
rental apartments, including the YieldStar/AI Revenue Management
software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq.
          Tricia R. Herzfeld, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN, 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          Email: aorlandi@bsjfirm.com
                 triciah@bsjfirm.com


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Ramirez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Emmanuel Ramirez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Receivables Performance
Management, LLC, Case No. 2022CH12126 was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook County Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 3, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00031 to the
proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Receivables Performance Managements --
http://www.receivablesperformance.com/-- is a one of the nation's
leading debt collection agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Augustine Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Republic Services
Incorporated. The case is styled as Michael Augustine, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Republic Services
Incorporated, Case No. 2:22-cv-02195-GMS (D. Ariz., Dec. 29,
2022).

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

Republic Services -- https://www.republicservices.com/ -- is an
American waste disposal company whose services include
non-hazardous solid waste collection, waste transfer, waste
disposal, recycling, and energy services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
          Max S. Morgan, Esq.
          WEITZ FIRM LLC
          1515 Market St., Ste. 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (267) 587-6240
          Fax: (215) 689-0875
          Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Walsh Files FDCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services L.P., et al. The case is styled as Kathy Walsh,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Resurgent Capital Services L.P., LVNV Funding LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-01660 (D. Conn., Dec. 31, 2022).

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

Resurgent Capital Services, LP -- https://www.resurgent.com/ --
provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios
for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RHODE ISLAND: District Court Grants Bid to Stay Liberty v. RIDOC
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, 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, Plaintiffs 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, Defendants, C.A. No.
19-573-JJM-PAS (D.R.I.), Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island grants
Rhode Island Department of Corrections' motion for stay.

Filed on Oct. 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 Rhode Island Department of Corrections
("RIDOC") to sanction and manage prisoners who have been identified
as suffering from serious and persistent mental illness ("SPMI").

The Liberty complaint is narrowly focused on a "limited issue":
whether RIDOC has systemically placed inmates known to be suffering
from SPMI in restrictive housing in violation of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. As
pertinent to the stay motion, this issue is also before the Court
in three cases that preceded Liberty: Morris v. Travisono,
69-cv-4192-JJM ; Paiva v. RIDOC, 17-mc-14-JJM; and Diaz v. Wall,
17-cv-94-JJM. Ongoing court-annexed mediation proceedings in these
three cases is a critical part of the foundation underpinning the
Court's exercise of its discretion to enter a time-limited stay of
all proceedings in Liberty, and not just a limited discovery stay.

Morris is a 1969 class action in which the Court certified the
class of all current and future inmates of the Adult Correction
Institutions with a subclass of inmates at the Behavioral
Correctional Unit. In 1972, the Morris Court entered an injunction
that has come to be known as the Morris Rules, which broadly
addressed, inter alia, inmate classification and the use and
indicia of restrictive housing for all inmates, including those
suffering from what has since come to be called SPMI, as well as
any mental illness.

The Morris Rules fell into disuse and the injunction was not
enforced for many years until Jan. 16, 2017, when Mr. Richard
Paiva, proceeding pro se, initiated Paiva. After protracted
activity involving several appeals, on Dec. 21, 2018, the First
Circuit found that the injunction remained in full force and effect
and vacated the District Court's rejection of Mr. Paiva's attempt
to revive the Morris Rules. Paiva was remanded for further
proceedings.

On Dec. 18, 2019, the Court granted Mr. Paiva's motion to intervene
in Morris and to be designated as successor class representative.
The Court appointed successor class counsel and, on Feb. 7, 2020,
ordered that all proceedings then pending in Morris be stayed
pending further order of the Court.

On Sept. 18, 2020, Morris/Paiva was referred to Judge Sullivan for
court-annexed mediation. After eight mediation sessions, and with
substantial input from all parties, she appointed a Rule 706 expert
to be paid for by RIDOC for the purpose of obtaining expert
opinions for guidance in connection with the ongoing mediation
proceedings. Since the appointment of this Rule 706 expert, all
parties in Morris/Paiva have engaged in court-annexed mediation in
good faith.

On Dec. 8, 2022, in the interest of judicial efficiency, in
furtherance of the Court's goal to facilitate RIDOC's good faith
commitment to address all Morris/Paiva issues and following
consultation with the Morris/Paiva parties and the previously
appointed Morris/Paiva Rule 706 expert, the Court appointed the
same independent mental health expert who had been vetted and
chosen as the Rule 706 Expert in Liberty.

On March 7, 2017, Mr. Samuel Diaz, proceeding pro se, filed a case
with two loosely connected claims. While no formal stay has
entered, Diaz has not been actively litigated at all while the
mediation has been pending. The pace of the Diaz mediation slowed
in 2021, after the Court and RIDOC had begun to invest substantial
resources in the Morris/Paiva mediation. Mr. Diaz has been, and
continues to be, a member of the Morris/Paiva class.

With the Diaz mediation ongoing, and with Morris/Paiva reactivated
as a class action by the First Circuit with a new class
representative and newly court-appointed class counsel, Liberty was
filed on Oct. 25, 2019. Cast as a putative class action, Liberty
seeks only injunctive and declaratory relief. All of the putative
class members in Liberty are members of the certified class in
Morris/Paiva. The Liberty claims are narrower than, but
substantially overlap with the injunctive relief claims in Diaz;
further, they fall within the broad scope of what is in issue in
Morris/Paiva.

On July 6, 2020, the Court referred Liberty to Judge Sullivan for
court-annexed mediation. However, despite this mediation referral,
the Plaintiffs did not agree to any respite from aggressive
discovery and litigation.

In June 2022, at the Plaintiffs' request, the Court discussed with
the parties the possibility of resuming mediation. On July 21,
2022, the Plaintiffs indicated that they would agree to the Court's
engagement of a Rule 706 mental health expert similar to the
engagement in Morris/Paiva, with a time-limited stay of discovery.
RIDOC indicated its agreement to a Rule 706 expert that it would
pay for, provided that the time-limited stay would stop all
proceedings, including discovery, to allow it to focus on the
mediation.

On Nov. 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs advised the Court in mediation
that they would agree to a 90-day discovery stay, finite but
renewable, provided that RIDOC would complete production of certain
documents (to which RIDOC had agreed) and that Plaintiffs could
proceed with a discovery motion to define "restrictive housing" as
used in their complaint. Plaintiffs did not advise the Court (or
RIDOC) that they planned to use the stay-based hiatus to file their
motion for class certification.

On Nov. 29, 2022, RIDOC filed the instant motion for a stay. On
Dec. 8, 2022, the Court appointed the same mental health Rule 706
Expert in both Morris/Paiva and Liberty. On the same day, the
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the stay motion.

Judge Sullivan states that in these four cases -- Liberty,
Morris/Paiva and Diaz -- with the good-faith participation of
RIDOC, the 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. Because the parties in Liberty have
been unable to agree on the precise scope of the stay, the Court
now exercises its discretion to adopt a stay that is based on the
parties' agreement (as far as it went), but that, considering all
of the equities, is framed to protect the integrity of the
court-annexed mediation in all four cases and to facilitate the
work of the court-appointed Rule 706 Expert not just in Liberty but
also in Morris/Paiva.

In exercising this discretion, Judge Sullivan points out that the
Court has considered the substantial burden that litigation of the
class certification motion in Liberty will impose on the Court and
the parties because of the factually and legally difficult issues
that it will present. Further, while it is true that, over the more
than three years that Liberty has been pending, the Court had
repeatedly (as the Plaintiffs acknowledge) inquired of the
Plaintiffs about class certification, the Court did not -- and
would never -- suggest that the right timing for class
certification would be during a time-limited stay entered to
facilitate court-annexed mediation, particularly where the Court
has appointed a Rule 706 Expert (paid for by RIDOC) to support the
mediation.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Sullivan finds that litigation of
class certification during this first phase of Rule 706 Expert's
appointment would significantly and potentially catastrophically
interfere with the ongoing mediations and the work of the Rule 706
Expert in both Morris/Paiva and Liberty. She further finds that a
delay of a few months will inflict no prejudice on the putative
Liberty class, especially where all of the Liberty putative class
members are already members of a certified class in Morris/Paiva,
in which the same Rule 706 Expert is also appointed.

Relatedly, tJudg Sullivan finds that the limited stay as advocated
for by the Plaintiffs' counsel would likely be more harmful to the
true interests of the putative Liberty class because it would
further delay solutions that RIDOC was already working toward
before Liberty was filed. Mindful of RIDOC's willingness to
mediate, as demonstrated in Diaz and Morris/Paiva, she also finds
that the stay is consistent with DRRI's statutory obligation to
mediate and to litigate as a last resort.

As to timing, as cabined by the Court's further instructions to the
Rule 706 Expert, entered under seal in both Liberty and
Morris/Paiva, the first phase of the Rule 706 Expert's work will be
completed by April 7, 2023. Accordingly, instead of 90 days as the
parties agreed, this stay will remain in full force and effect
until April 21, 2023, to allow Rule 706 Expert's work in both
Morris/Paiva and Liberty to proceed unimpeded. On April 21, 2023,
the Court will determine whether (and, if necessary, with what
limitations) the stay should continue. The parties will provide the
Court with their positions regarding any such continuation in
filings that are due no later than April 11, 2023.

Regarding RIDOC's obligation to continue litigation-based document
production, Judge Sullivan orders that RIDOC will comply with its
agreement to complete production of certain documents during the
stay, provided that RIDOC's duty to cooperate with the Rule 706
Expert and to focus on the mediation in both Liberty and
Morris/Paiva will have priority during the period of the stay.
Finally, prior to the appointment of the Liberty Rule 706 Expert,
when the Court was focused on the Liberty mediation only, and with
the parties seemingly near agreement regarding the scope of the
stay, she indicated that a motion for clarification of the term
"restrictive housing," as it is used in the Liberty complaint,
could be filed during the stay.

Because the Court now is considering not just Liberty, but also
Morris/Paiva, as well as because the now-entered Order of
appointment of the Court's Rule 706 Expert provides that her access
to information is not limited by any such definition, Judge
Sullivan finds that it is not necessary for this term to be defined
during the period of the stay. Therefore, she further orders that
the stay bars the Plaintiffs from filing their "restrictive
housing" discovery motion.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Sullivan grants RIDOC's motion for
stay. Acting pursuant to her inherent power, she orders that the
matter is stayed for all purposes until April 21, 2023, with the
exception of the ongoing completion of certain discovery as
outlined. Relatedly, Judge Sullivan cancels the Court's previously
scheduled quarterly discovery status conferences and vacates its
Orders requiring the parties to file status conference reports,
pending further Order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/42wa68z6 from Leagle.com.


RICKSHAW BAGWORKS: Genwright Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rickshaw Bagworks,
Inc. The case is styled as Thomas Genwright, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rickshaw Bagworks, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10981 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2022).

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

Rickshaw Bagworks -- https://www.rickshawbags.com/ -- is a custom
bag design and manufacturing company, specializing in messenger
bags, backpacks, computer carrying cases, iPad and Kindle sleeves,
laptop computer sleeves, tote bags and related accessories.[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


SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES: Morton Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Peggy Morton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Scanstat Technologies Inc. McLeod
Regional Medical Center doing business as: McLeod Orthopaedics,
Travis Novinger, MD, Case No. 2022-CP-13-00841 was removed from the
Chesterfield Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina on Jan. 3, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-04713-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 is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Paul J Doolittle, Esq.
          POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (843) 834-4712
          Email: 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


SEEMAN HOLTZ: $650K Class Deal in Millstein Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FANNY B. MILLSTEIN, Plaintiff v. ERIC HOLTZ, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-61179-RAR (S.D. Fla.), Judge Rodolfo A.
Ruiz, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida grants the Class's Unopposed Motions for Final Approval of
Class Settlement and for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.

The Plaintiff brought the lawsuit seeking monetary damages based on
its claim that SHPC was an instrumentality of, or participated in,
a RICO enterprise executed by SH&S. Plaintiff alleged that as a
result of this participation, the SH Enterprise transferred more
than $5 million away from the SH Enterprise to SHPC, whose
ownership was transferred from the control of the SH Enterprise to
a third party. SHPC vigorously denied the Class's allegations of
wrongdoing in discussions with Plaintiff's counsel, claiming that
its owners foreclosed on SHPC as pledged collateral for certain
extensions of credit made to SH&S for the acquisition of insurance
companies by SHPC Holdings I, LLC, which owned SHPC.

The Parties agreed to the material terms of a Settlement on June
20, 2022, and they finalized and executed the Settlement Agreement
on Aug. 5, 2022. The Class filed its Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement, for Certification of
Settlement Class and Notice to the Settlement Class on Sept. 6,
2022. The Court held a hearing on the Class's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement on Sept. 19, 2022, and
granted preliminary approval of the Settlement the same day. The
Class filed its Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs on
Oct. 17, 2022, and its Motion for Final Approval of the Class
Settlement on December 13.

The Parties engaged in direct negotiation, including an in-person
meeting with counsel for SHPC and other Defendants prior to filing
the Complaint in the action. Subsequently, the Plaintiff and SHPC
had numerous discussions on issues concerning liability and the
amount of damages, based on the amount transferred to SHPC. The
Plaintiff consented to extend deadlines for SHPC to respond to the
Complaint in order to try and reach a settlement. On July 20, 2022,
the Plaintiff and SHPC agreed to basic terms of a settlement on
behalf of the Plaintiff and the Class and executed the proposed
Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Class is an opt-out class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Settlement Class is defined
as: "All persons who purchased or held a beneficial interest in one
or more of the Notes within the applicable limitations period.
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any entity in which any
Defendant had a controlling interest, Defendants' officers,
directors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns, and
Defendants' immediate family members."

The Settlement creates a common fund of $650,000 for the Settlement
Class. The Settlement Fund will be used to pay the Settlement Class
Members' damages in individual Settlement Awards, the Class's costs
and attorneys' fees, and the costs of notice and claims
administration. All Settlement Class Members had until Oct. 31,
2022, to object to, or opt out of, the Settlement.

Thus, all Settlement Class Members who did not opt out of the
Settlement will be eligible to receive a distribution from the
Settlement Fund. The Court authorizes distributing net settlement
funds through the Settlement Administrator, Daniel J. Stermer, who
is the Corporate Monitor in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida in Case No.
50-2021-CA-008718-XXX-MB ("Settlement Administrator" or "Corporate
Monitor") pro rata, based on principal losses in the Notes, of the
net settlement proceeds from this action, which will be added to
any funds for distribution from the Corporate Monitorship. Each
Settlement Class Members' Settlement Award will be determined by
the Settlement Administrator who will be responsible to approve
claims and distribute proceeds from the Settlement along with all
amounts recovered by the Corporate Monitor.

In exchange for the benefits conferred by the Settlement, all
Settlement Class Members who do not opt out will release the
Defendant and its past, current and future owners, directors,
officers, affiliates, independent contractors, secured lenders,
Lender Parties, and professionals, and their employees, officers,
directors, independent contractors, and professionals of any and
all past, present or future claims, liabilities, demands, causes of
action, obligations, controversies, executions, or lawsuits of the
Settlement Class Members as of the date of Final Approval, whether
legal, statutory, equitable, or of any other type or form, whether
under federal, state, or local law, whether known or unknown,
whether brought or could have been brought in the Litigation, and
whether brought in an individual, representative, or any other
capacity. The Released Parties do not include Marshal Seeman, Eric
Holtz and the Estate of Eric Holtz, or Brian Schwartz, and this
Settlement Agreement and Release provides no benefits to them.

Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement
Administrator implemented the Notice Program using contact
information the Corporate Monitor already had for the Settlement
Class Members. The Settlement Administrator sent the E-Mailed
Notices and Mailed Notices on Sept. 22, 2022. Settlement Class
Members were given until Oct. 31, 2022 to either opt out or object
to the Settlement. No Settlement Class Member objected to the
Settlement, and 22 Settlement Class members opted out.

The Class Counsel filed their Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees
on Oct. 17, 2022, requesting 30% of the Settlement Fund or
$195,000. SHPC does not object to this fee request nor does SHPC
object to the Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of
$3,663.23 in documented litigation expenses. The Parties negotiated
attorneys' fees and costs only after reaching agreement on all
other material terms of the Settlement.

Judge Ruiz finds that the Settlement Agreement fair, adequate and
reasonable and is not the product of collusion between the parties.
He also finds that the Class Counsel's request for fees of 30% of
the $650,000 Settlement Fund is reasonable and appropriate and that
all of the out-of-pocket expenses were reasonably and necessarily
incurred in furtherance of the prosecution of the lawsuit.

For these reasons, Judge Ruiz grants the Class's Unopposed Motion
for Final Approval and approves the Settlement. He also grants the
Class's Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and approves
an award of attorneys' fees to the Class Counsel in the amount of
$195,000, and approves reimbursement of the Class Counsel's
litigation expenses in the amount of $3,663.23, all to be paid out
of the Common Fund.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/p3ma5mt5 from Leagle.com.


SENTINEL PROTECTION: Paul Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL PAUL, on his own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SENTINEL PROTECTION, LLC, Florida Limited Liability
Company, WATCHDOG SECURITY, LLC, Florida Limited Liability Company,
MARC A. MILLER, an Individual, and CANDY PARTEE, an Individual,
Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-60002 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 2, 2023) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and
other current and former employees of Defendants similarly situated
to him, for unpaid overtime compensation and inapplicable minimum
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a security guard for Defendant during the
period of approximately 2020 through 2022.

Sentinel Protection, LLC provides and maintains security protection
to commercial and residential properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maguene D. Cadet, Esq.,
          LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
          2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
          Boynton Beach, FL 33426
          Telephone: (561) 853-2212
          Facsimile: (561) 853-2213
          E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com

SKYWEST AIRLINES: Hearing on Summary Adjudication Bid Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY HOROWITZ, v.
SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-04674-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an order:

   1. vacating hearing on defendant's motion for summary
      adjudication; and

   2. deferring ruling on the plaintiff's motion for class
      certification.

Before the Court is defendant's motion for summary adjudication,
filed December 2, 2022. The Plaintiff has filed opposition, to
which defendant has replied. Having read and considered the papers
filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court
deems the matter appropriate for determination on the parties'
respective written submissions, and hereby vacates the hearing
scheduled for January 6, 2023.

In light of the above, the Court defers ruling on plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification, and the hearing on said motion,
presently scheduled for January 6, 2023, will be reset, as
appropriate, upon resolution of defendant's Motion for Summary
Adjudication.

SkyWest Airlines is an American regional airline headquartered in
St. George, Utah, United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZbiOz6 at no extra charge.[CC]

SOULCYCLE INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SoulCycle, Inc. The
case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SoulCycle, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00010 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2023).

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

SoulCycle -- http://www.soul-cycle.com/-- is a fitness company
owned by Equinox Group which offers indoor cycling and spinning
workout classes.[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

TARGET CORP: Gouwens' Amended Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA GOUWENS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-50016 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Iain D.
Johnston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Western Division, grants Target's motion to dismiss and
dismisses the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Target manufactures, labels, markets, and sells a "fruit punch"
flavored concentrated liquid water enhancer under its brand, Market
Pantry. At some point between December 2020 and June 2021, Gouwens
purchased one of these products, expecting that the fruit punch
flavor was only from natural flavoring ingredients and not from
artificial flavoring ingredients.

The Plaintiff claims that laboratory analysis shows that the malic
acid in the Product, is artificial dl-malic acid. She claims that
because of the concentration of dl-malic acid, the Product is not
naturally flavored, and the front label should disclose the
presence of not only natural but also artificial flavor.

The Plaintiff also states that the ingredient list is misleading
because it only identifies the generic "malic acid" instead of
identifying the ingredient as "dl-malic acid". She claims that had
she known the Product contained dl-malic acid instead of natural
d-malic acid, she would not have bought the Product or would have
paid less.

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action complaint against
Target. She brings three claims under Illinois Law: (1) a violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
(ICFA); (2) breach of express warranty; and (3) common law fraud.
She also brings claims under the consumer protection laws of
Michigan, Texas, Arkansas, Delaware, Wyoming, Virginia, and
Oklahoma. Plaintiff seeks both injunctive relief and money
damages.

Target now moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety
under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the Plaintiff's claims are
preempted, implausible, and inadequately pled.

First, Judge Johnston agrees with Target that it is not misleading
for it to disclose that its products contain natural flavors or to
use an accurate regulatory disclosure that is mandated by federal
law." Accordingly, the Plaintiff's ICFA claim is based on a
fanciful and unreasonable interpretation of the Product's label.
Because the Plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim for relief
under the ICFA, her ICFA claim is dismissed with prejudice.

Next, the Plaintiff does not argue waiver in her response to the
motion to dismiss. However, the table of contents of her response
contains a line-item that purportedly seeks to argue waiver of
Target's footnote argument, but curiously she does not raise the
argument in the body of her response. The table of contents
line-item makes clear that Plaintiff contemplated and had the
opportunity to develop the argument in the motion but failed to do
so, and as a result the Plaintiff has "waived waiver" by not
challenging Target's footnote argument.

Absent any argument to the contrary, because the other state's
consumer fraud statutes apply the same reasonable consumer standard
which the Plaintiff failed to show in her ICFA claim, Judge
Johnston finds that this claim must fail too. Target's motion to
dismiss the consumer fraud claims under the laws of Michigan,
Texas, Arkansas, Delaware, Wyoming, Virginia, and Oklahoma, is
granted.

Finally, because the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged deception,
her claims for breach of express warranty and common-law fraud are
dismissed. Judge Johnston reasons that these claims are premised on
the Plaintiff's assertion that Target's labeling is deceptive or
misleading based on the same allegations discussed in connection
with her ICFA claims. Without a plausible allegation of deception,
these remaining claims must also suffer the same fate for the
reasons already stated.

For these reasons, Judge Johnston grants Target's motion to dismiss
and dismisses the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yu6xzw2e from
Leagle.com.


THEATRE REFRESHMENT: Malcher Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
OLAF MALCHER, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THEATRE REFRESHMENT CO. OF NEW
YORK AND LENNY LOWENGRUB, Jointly and severally, Defendants, Case
No. 150046/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Jan. 2, 2023) arises
from the Defendants' violation of the New York Labor Law by failing
to pay the minimum wage, failing to provide an accurate wage,
unlawfully retaining gratuities, and engaging in retaliatory
conduct.

Plaintiff Malcher worked for the Defendants as a bartender from
April 2003 to 2007 and again from December 2012 to the present.

Theatre Refreshment Co. of New York operates the concession stands
at the 18 Broadway theatres that the Shubert Organization owns,
with many theatres having multiple concession stands.

Defendant Lowengrub is the chief executive officer of Defendant
Theatre Refreshment Co. of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  milana@lipskylowe.com

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Discovery & Class Cert Deadlines Extended
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESERT COVE RECOVERY, LLC,
et al., v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 4:19-cv-05721-JSW
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order
granting in part plaintiffs' motion to extend discovery and class
certification deadlines as follows:

Accordingly, the Court extends the deadlines as follows:

  -- The Court maintains January 4, 2023 as a deadline to
     complete fact discovery, other than depositions, necessary
     for class certification.

  -- The deposition deadlines imposed by Judge Spero shall not
     be modified.

  -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall now be
     due on March 6, 2023.

  -- The Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion shall now
     be due on April 17, 2023.

  -- The Plaintiffs' reply shall now be due on May 8, 2023.

  -- The Court will hear Plaintiffs' motion for class
     certification on June 9, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.

On December 8, 2022, the Court extended fact discovery until
January 4, 2022, pending resolution of this motion. The Defendant
argue that the Plaintiffs' concerns could be addressed by a more
limited extension.

The Court previously denied Plaintiffs' request to extend the
deadline to file an amended complaint because they failed to comply
with the Court's Order requiring requests for extensions to be
filed a week before deadlines expired. The Court also concluded
that the Plaintiffs did not act with diligence to finalize the
protective order.

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not established good cause
to extend the deadline to propound new fact discovery, and it will
not extend the remaining deadlines by 90 days. However, the Court
does find good cause to grant a partial extension to permit the
parties' depositions to be completed, and it will continue the
briefing schedule and hearing date on the motion for class
certification to allow for briefing to incorporate any information
developed during those depositions.

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


VISIONEER INC: Fontanez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON FONTANEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Visioneer, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
150037/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Jan. 2, 2023) is a
class-action lawsuit challenging Defendant's discriminatory
business practices as its Website, visioneer.com, allegedly
contained access barriers that prevented Plaintiff and other
visually impaired and/or legally blind individuals from purchasing
products thereon, in violation of the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff and the Class seek, inter alia, a preliminary and
permanent injunction, other declaratory relief, statutory damages,
actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expense.

The Defendant is an online retail company, that owns and/or
operates visioneer.com. Through the Website, Defendant sells its
products, such as as printers and documents scanners for personal
computers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
          E-mail: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

ZAER LTD: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zaer Ltd. The case is
styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Zaer Ltd., Case No. 1:23-cv-00030
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2023).

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

Zaer Ltd. -- https://www.zaerltd.com/193/homepage.htm -- is a
leading manufacturing and wholesale corporation founded in
1995.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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