---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 17, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 13

                            Headlines

150 RIVERSIDE: Faces Tchalim Suit Over Failure to Pay Weekly Wages
ABC PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Manual Workers' OT, Radoncic Claims
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 6
AINSWORTH PET: Kirchenberg Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 5
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Court Junks Martin Putative Class Suit

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Stewart Trial to Start March 6
ALBIREO PHARMA: M&A Class Action Investigates Ipsen Proposed Sale
ALL STAR: M.D. Tennessee Recommends Dismissal of Hamer Class Suit
ALTICOR INC: Employees File Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
ALTICOR INC: Garcia, et al., File Bid for Class Certification

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settles Baggage Fee Class Action for $7.5-Mil.
APPLE INC: Duanne Morris Attorneys Discuss BIPA Suit Dismissal
APPLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
APPLE INC: Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set March 16, 2023
ATLANTA, GA: Court Orders Oldaker to Amend Complaint v. Giles

BARCLAYS BANK: Among Class Action Target of Litigation Funders
BASS PRO: W.D. Missouri Denies Bid to Dismiss Slaughter Class Suit
BEAUMONT PRODUCTS: Faces Keene Suit Over Mislabeled Soap Products
BOSWORTH COMPANY: Court Tosses Dickson Bid for Reconsideration
BRERA HOLDINGS: Karp Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending

BRINKER RESTAURANT: Gomez Sues Over Failure to Pay Premium Wages
CALIFORNIA: Judge Wants AG to Participate in Coleman Class Action
CANADA: Indian Boarding Home Survivors Set to Get Compensation
CANADA: Suit Mulled Over Saskatchewan First Nations' Dental Work
CD PROJEKT: Settles Cyberpunk 2077 Class Action for $1.85 Million

CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU: Mar. 31 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
CITIZENS BANK: Court Modifies Class Cert. Sched Order in Chirchir
CLEANSPARK INC: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Securities Claims
CONSUMER CREDIT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Pinn TCPA Class Suit
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Guimon Suit Seeks to Recover Proper Wages

D-PATRICK INC: Indiana Residents Set to Get Class Settlement Checks
DELTA AIRLINES: Court Clarifies June 22, 2022 Scheduling Order
DESIGNER BRANDS: Laguardia Suit Stayed Pending Mediation
ENOVIX CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 7
EPIC GAMES: Faces Class Action in Quebec Over Fortnite Video Game

ESTES HOLDINGS: Prescott Sues Over Sushi Chefs' Unpaid Wages
FLORIDA: To Pay Up to $1-M to Law Firms to Defend Immigrant Suit
FORD MOTOR: Bid to Exclude Expert, Granted-in-Part, Denied-in-Part
FORD MOTOR: Shifter Cable Bushing Recalls Prompt Class Action
FRANKE FOODSERVICE: Scott Sues Over Production Staff's Unpaid OT

GEMINI TRUST: Chablaney Sues Over $1.8B Loan Losses to Crypto Firms
GHP MANAGEMENT: Settles Class Action Over Late Fees for $1.75MM
GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to Seal Identified Portions of Joint Submission
HASBRO INC: Class Suit Mulled Over Dungeons and Dragons Game Rights
HAVANA CENTRAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Montoya Suit Alleges

HEY FAVOR: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Privacy Violations
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Faces Privacy Class Action in Georgia
JARED HALL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hendrickson Suit Claims
KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Nelson Claims
KIDS FOR THE FUTURE: Court Dismisses Wallace Suit With Prejudice

KRAFT HEINZ: Tatum Suit Moved From N.D. California to N.D. Illinois
LASTPASS US: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breach
LILY'S SWEETS: Kell Sues Over Mislabeled Chocolate Bar Products
LOUISIANA: District Court Stays Discovery in Alex v. Edwards
LOYALTY BRAND: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hernandez Says

MAVIS DISCOUNT: Underpays Tire Specialists, Washington Suit Claims
MIELE INC: Final Judgment Entered in Alcazar Class Suit
MINNESOTA: Dismissal of Some Claims in White v. Dayton Recommended
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Pay Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
PAPA JOHN'S: Faces Jones Suit Over Alleged Illegal Wiretapping

PHH MORTGAGE: $2.8-Mil. FDCPA Settlement Granted Prelim. Approval
PHILADELPHIA AMERICAN: Summary Judgment Recommended in Drees Suit
QUALCOMM INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Claims in Antitrust Lawsuit
RED LION: Wash. App. Affirms Dismissal of Amended Allentoff Suit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: McDougall Sues Over Mislabeled Smartphones

SARAYA USA: Faces Suit Over Lakanto Monkfruit Sweeteners' False Ads
SAZERAC COMPANY: Marquez Sues Over Mislabeled Cinnamon Beverages
SKYWEST AIRLINES: SAPA Wins Leave to Intervene in Horowitz Suit
SLEEP CO PRIVATE: Faces Hritz Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
SONESTA INT'L: Arbitration Bid in Dominguez Suit Granted in Part

SPROUT FOOD: Court Dismissed Suit Over Mislabeled Food Products
STANDARD FIRE: Denial of Summary Judgment in Young Suit Affirmed
SUPERCELL OY: Mai's 1st Amended Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
TALLY HO LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mitchell Suit Alleges
TARGET CORP: Can Move Consumer Class Actions to Federal Court

TARGET CORP: Judge Dismisses Market Pantry Fruit Punch Class Action
TERRAFORM LABS: LUNA New York Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
TESLA INC: CEO Wants Shareholder Class Action Moved to West Texas
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Kushelowitz et al. Seek Unpaid OT Wages
TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Deceptive Advertising

TRANSCEND DVENTURES: Prentice Seeks Sales Managers' Unpaid Wages
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Aventus Files Class Action Over COVID-19 Tests
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unpaid Royalties
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Faces Class Suit Over Spotify Equity Ownership
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Inflated Ranking

WASTE PRO: Court Awards $5.8K in Attorney's Fees in Rivera Suit
XOOM ENERGY: Court OK's Time Extension to File Response
YAHOO! INC: Cal. Supreme Court Ruling in TCPA Class Suit Discussed
ZYWAVE INC: Judge Approves $11-Mil. Breach Class Action Settlement
[*] Duane Morris LLP Releases Class Action Review 2023

[*] Value of UK Competition Class-Action Lawsuits Surged in 2022

                            *********

150 RIVERSIDE: Faces Tchalim Suit Over Failure to Pay Weekly Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEMEALO TCHALIM, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. 150 RIVERSIDE OP. LLC d/b/a The Riverside
Premier Rehabilitation and Healing Center, Case No. 1:23-cv-00075
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2023) alleges that Defendant paid Plaintiff and
other individuals who work and/or have worked for Defendant as
certified nursing assistants, dietary aides, housekeeping aides,
maintenance workers and supply clerks on a biweekly basis, in
violation of New York Labor Law Section 191(1)(a), and the
requirement that employees "be paid on the regular pay day" under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Class lost the time value of
their earned wages. The Defendant, however, benefited from the
delayed payments, the lawsuit claims.

The Plaintiff also brings this action against Defendant to remedy
discrimination in employment in violation of Section 1981 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

In December 2021, Patillo removed the Plaintiff from the floor
purportedly because she was not wearing an N-95 mask. None of the
employees on the floor on which Plaintiff was working were wearing
an N-95 mask, but the Plaintiff was the only employee that Patillo
removed.

Patillo's discriminatory harassment of the Plaintiff interfered
with her ability to work and created a hostile work environment. As
a result of Patillo's discriminatory harassment, the Plaintiff has
suffered, and continues to suffer severe emotional harm and
distress. The Plaintiff has been diagnosed with anxiety for which
she has been prescribed medication, says the suit.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Certified Nursing
Assistant from December 5, 2005 until November 25, 2022. The
Plaintiff is an immigrant from the Togolese Republic, a country in
West Africa.

150 Riverside is a short-term rehabilitation and long-term nursing
center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

ABC PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Manual Workers' OT, Radoncic Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SANEL RADONCIC, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. ABC PROPERTIES EQUITIES LLC, and
FISHER ASSOCIATES, LLC, and ALAN FISHER, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00003 (S.D.N.Y., January 1, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a superintendent
from 2013 to October 29, 2022.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action alleging
the Defendants of willful violations of the NYLL by failing to pay
him and other similarly situated manual workers the wages lawfully
due to them throughout the entirety of their employment with the
Defendants. Specifically, they were required by the Defendants to
work more 40 hours per week without paying them overtime
compensation at the statutorily required overtime rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour that they
worked per week excess of 40. The Plaintiff also claims that the
Defendants failed to them on a weekly basis, and failed to pay them
for accrued vacation and sick pay pursuant to the terms and
conditions of his employment.

ABC Properties Equities LLC and Fisher Associates, LLC operate a
property management company that manages residential buildings.
Alan Fisher is the owner and president of the Management Company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          STEVENSON MARINO LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave., Suite 1500
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Tel: (212) 939-7229

AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you lose money on investments in Affirm Holdings, Inc.? If so,
please visit Affirm Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com
to discuss your rights.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Affirm Holdings, Inc. ("Affirm" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AFRM)
between February 12, 2021 and December 15, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Affirm operates a platform for digital and mobile-first commerce in
the U.S. and Canada.  The Company's platform includes point-of-sale
payment solutions for consumers, merchant commerce solutions, and a
consumer-focused app. Particularly, Affirm offers a payment service
known as "buy-now, pay-later" ("BNPL"), which allows consumers to
purchase a product immediately and pay for it at a later time,
usually over a series of installments. According to the Company,
"[u]nlike legacy payment options and our competitors' product
offerings, which charge deferred or compounding interest and
unexpected costs, we disclose up-front to consumers exactly what
they will owe — no hidden fees, no penalties."

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements throughout the Class Period. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
Affirm's BNPL service facilitated excessive consumer debt,
regulatory arbitrage, and data harvesting; and (ii) the foregoing
subjected Affirm to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and
enforcement action.

On December 16, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
("CFPB") announced that it had launched an inquiry into Affirm's
BNPL payment service, along with four other companies offering
BNPL. The CFPB indicated that it was concerned about how BNPL leads
to "accumulating debt, regulatory arbitrage, and data harvesting,"
and is seeking data on the risks and benefits of the products. In a
statement addressing BNPL services, the CFPB Director stated,
"[t]he consumer gets the product immediately but gets the debt
immediately too."

On this news, Affirm's stock price fell $11.74 per share, or
10.58%, to close at $99.24 per share on December 16, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 6, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased or acquired Affirm securities, and/or would like
to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Affirm
Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter
Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:

Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]

AINSWORTH PET: Kirchenberg Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kirchenberg v. Ainsworth
Pet Nutrition, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00690 (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order setting deadlines and
hearings for class certification.

  -- The Plaintiff shall file a motion       Sept. 5, 2023
     for class certification no later
     than:

  -- The Plaintiff shall notice the          Feb. 1, 2024
     motion for a hearing no later
     than:

  -- The defendants' opposition to           Oct. 26, 2023
     that motion shall be filed
     no later than:

  -- The plaintiff's reply in                Dec. 7, 2023
     support of that motion shall
     be filed no later than:

  -- All dispositive motions, except         April 1, 2024
     for motions for continuances,
     temporary restraining orders
     or other emergency applications
     shall be filed no later than:

The nature of suit states Contract -- Contract Product Liability.

Ainsworth Pet Nutrition is a fifth generation, primarily
family-owned and operated company named after one of the company
founders, George Ainsworth Lang.[CC]

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Court Junks Martin Putative Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended December 3, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2023, that the the
California Superior Court for the County of Alameda dismissed the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") putative class
suit on May 4, 2022.

On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Martin
v. Safeway was filed in the California Superior Court for the
County of Alameda, alleging the Company failed to comply with the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") by printing
receipts that failed to adequately mask payment card numbers as
required by FACTA. The plaintiff claims the violation was "willful"
and exposes the Company to statutory damages provided for in FACTA.


On January 8, 2020, the Company commenced mediation discussions
with plaintiff's counsel and reached a settlement in principle on
February 24, 2020.

On May 4, 2022, the court approved the negotiated settlement and
entered a final judgment dismissing the lawsuit. Pursuant to the
settlement, funds have been paid to a claims administrator, who
will oversee the processing of claims.

Albertsons Cos. Inc. is one of the largest food and drug retailers
in the United States. It retails and distributes fruits,
vegetables, canned items, medicines, and other related goods. [BN]

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Stewart Trial to Start March 6
----------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended December 3, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2023, that the trial for the
Oregon class action is set to begin on March 6, 2023 if summary
judgment motion is denied.

A class action lawsuit entitled Schearon Stewart and Jason Stewart
v. Safeway Inc. is pending in Circuit Court, County of Multnomah,
State of Oregon, in which Safeway is alleged to have engaged in
unfair trade practices, in violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade
Practices Act (ORS 646.608), regarding the sale of certain meat
products in 2015 and 2016 in the state of Oregon with its "Buy One,
Get One Free" and similar promotions. Safeway denies plaintiffs'
claim and is vigorously defending itself in the matter.

On December 19, 2022, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment which is pending.

On December 22, 2022, the Court certified the lawsuit as a class
action.

Trial is scheduled to commence on March 6, 2023, if Safeway's
motion for summary judgment is denied.

Albertsons Cos. Inc. is one of the largest food and drug retailers
in the United States. It retails and distributes fruits,
vegetables, canned items, medicines, and other related goods. [BN]


ALBIREO PHARMA: M&A Class Action Investigates Ipsen Proposed Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Albireo
Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALBO), relating to its proposed sale to
Ipsen. Under the terms of the agreement, ALBO shareholders are
expected to receive $42.00 in cash per share they own, plus one
Contingent Value Right worth a deferred $10.00 per share. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/albireo-pharma-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases.

If you own common stock in ALBO and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via
e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212)
971-1341.

Contact:

Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

ALL STAR: M.D. Tennessee Recommends Dismissal of Hamer Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER HAMER v. ALL STAR PERSONNEL, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00123 (M.D. Tenn.), Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville, recommends that the action be dismissed.

Hamer commenced the case by filing a complaint on Feb. 23, 2022,
against All Star under the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereafter
"FLSA") of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., bringing
collective claims for unpaid overtime and individual claims for
retaliation. The Defendant filed an answer, and an initial case
management order was entered on June 29, 2022.

Although the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit with the benefit of
retained counsel, by Order entered Aug. 23, 2022, the Court
permitted the Plaintiff's counsel to withdraw and directed that
substitute counsel file a notice of appearance for the Plaintiff by
Sept. 19, 2022. The Plaintiff was cautioned in the Order that he
would be deemed to be proceeding pro se if substitute counsel did
not enter an appearance on his behalf and that, as a pro se party,
he could not proceed in the case on behalf of any other individual
and the collective action claims in the case would be dismissed.

An appearance by substitute counsel was not entered on behalf of
the Plaintiff. The Court therefore considered the Plaintiff to be
proceeding pro se and imposed a deadline of Dec. 30, 2022, for him
to file an amended complaint omitting the class action claims and
including only his individual claim(s). It specifically cautioned
him that his failure to timely file a proper amended complaint
would result in dismissal of the entire action. The Plaintiff did
not file an amended complaint as directed, and the docket in the
case reflects that the copy of the Nov. 21, 2022, Order sent to the
Plaintiff at his address of record was returned unclaimed with the
notations "return to sender, unclaimed, unable to forward."

Judge Holmes holds that the circumstances of this case warrant its
dismissal as to the Plaintiff's individual claims. She finds that
substitute counsel has not appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff and
the Plaintiff has not had any contact with the Court since his
original counsel withdrew. As indicated by the return of mail that
the Court attempted to send, the Plaintiff is either non-responsive
or the Court does not have a good mailing address for him. As a
result, the Court cannot communicate with Plaintiff. The case
cannot proceed with an absent plaintiff.

Dismissal of the case is appropriate in light of the impasse in
further proceedings caused by the Plaintiff's failure to prosecute,
his apparent disinterest in the action, and the fact that his
current whereabouts are unknown and/or he refuses to accept mail
from the Court. Neither the Court nor the Defendant should be
required to devote any further resources in the case given
Plaintiff's apparent disinterest in continuing to litigate the
case. Although Judge Holmes recognizes the Plaintiff's status as a
pro se litigant affords him with some measure of leeway, proceeding
pro se does not relieve a litigant from the basic obligations
required of all parties, such as keeping the Court informed of a
good mailing address and remaining involved in the case after the
withdrawal of counsel.

For these reasons, Judge Holmes respectfully recommends that the
case be dismissed under Rules 16(f) and Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Any objections to her Report and Recommendation must be filed with
the Clerk of Court within 14 days of service and must state with
particularity the specific portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which objection is made. Failure to file written
objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the
right to appeal the District Court's Order regarding the Report and
Recommendation. Responses to any objections must be filed within 14
days of service of the objections.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/s583seh3 from
Leagle.com.


ALTICOR INC: Employees File Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a lawsuit
accusing Amway parent Alticor Inc. of mismanaging its 401(k) plan
with high fees and bad investment options should be certified as a
class action covering more than 5,000 people, plan participants
told a Michigan federal court.

The motion seeks a class covering all Alticor plan participants and
beneficiaries since November 2014, with the defendants and their
immediate family members excluded. The case's central
question—whether Alticor fulfilled its fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act in managing the $1.2
billion plan—turns on plan-wide conduct that affects all
potential class members, according to the motion. [GN]



ALTICOR INC: Garcia, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA GARCIA, ANDREA P.
BRANDT and HOWARD HART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ALTICOR, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
ALTICOR, INC., THE FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE OF ALTICOR, INC., and JOHN
DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:20-cv-01078-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action on behalf of:

      "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
      members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
      Plan, at any time between November 9, 2014 through the
      date of judgment;"

   2. appointing them as representatives of the proposed class;
      and

   3. appointing their counsel as counsel for the Class.

In addition, as required by Local Rule 7.1(d), the Plaintiffs'
counsel contacted counsel for the Defendants and Defendants do not
concur with the requested relief.

Alticor is the holding company for four businesses, the most
well-known of which is Amway Corporation, the pioneer of multilevel
marketing (MLM).

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 6,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CzbML0
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
                  donr@capozziadler.com

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settles Baggage Fee Class Action for $7.5-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to NewsBreak's Amarie M., you may be one of the millions
of American Airlines passengers due money from being charged
incorrect checked luggage fees, according to a news report.

The accusation

According to a news report, Plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit
filed in 2021 against American Airlines claim the airline charged
passengers erroneous fees to check their luggage, $1.4 billion of
which were charged in 2019 alone. The case has been settled for at
least $7.5 million by American Airlines.

Travelers who were members of the airline's AAdvantage Gold loyalty
program and who had AA-branded credit cards that allowed them to
check their bags are among the litigants. The plaintiffs claim that
they were not awarded their benefits and were wrongly charged, due
to improper programming of their data into the airport's software
system, which has been an issue since at least 2013 for the
airline, per a report by CBS News.

Eligibility and how much money claimants will receive

Per the settlement website, class members are separated into two
groups:

1. Travelers with an American Citi or Barclay's credit card
(traveling domestically) entitling them to free check-in for a
first bag but were still charged luggage check-in fees.

2. Passengers who received confirmation via email of free check-in
of one or more bags, but were charged baggage fees.
Class members must have bought tickets no later than April 8, 2020,
and traveled on or after February 24, 2017, to be eligible for
compensation.

How to file a claim in the American Airlines settlement

Class members can file a claim online on the settlement website or
download, print, and mail a claim form to:

CLEARY V. AMERICAN AIRLINES SETTLEMENT
c/o A.B. DATA, LTD.
P.O. BOX 173053
MILWAUKEE, WI 53217

Claim filing and opt-out deadlines

The deadline to file a claim is February 22, 2023 (filed or
postmarked by this date). See details in the settlement website
FAQs.

To opt out of the settlement as a class member, you must do so no
later than January 18, 2023. See details in the settlement website
FAQs.

When you will receive a payment

The hearing for final approval of the settlement is scheduled for
May 8, 2023. Payments would go out after this date unless any
appeals delay the process. [GN]

APPLE INC: Duanne Morris Attorneys Discuss BIPA Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., Jennifer A. Riley, Esq., and Alex W.
Karasik, Esq., of Duane Morris report that in Barnett v. Apple
Inc., Case No. 1-22-0187, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 556 (Ill. App. 1st
Dist. Dec. 23, 2022), after a trial court dismissed a biometric
privacy class action lawsuit involving the use of facial and
fingerprint recognition features, the Illinois Appellate Court
affirmed the dismissal order. In an important decision defining the
parameters of liability under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA"), the Illinois Appellate Court held that the
users of the technology themselves were responsible for possessing,
capturing, and collecting their biometric data

For businesses that are confronted with biometric privacy class
action allegations in the context of recognition software, this
monumental victory for Apple provides an excellent roadmap to
attack such claims at the pleading stage.

Case Background

Plaintiffs alleged that Apple violated the Biometric Information
Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq., by offering users of its phones
and computers the option of utilizing face and fingerprint
recognition features without first instituting a written policy
regarding the retention and destruction of the users' biometric
information; and without first obtaining the users' written
consent. Id. at *1-2. Plaintiffs claimed Apple was "in possession
of," "collected," and "captured," the users' biometric information,
since Apple designed, owned, and had the ability to remotely update
the software. Id. at *2.

On January 3, 2022, the trial court granted Apple's motion to
dismiss. Id. at *9. First, the trial court held that Plaintiffs
failed to allege that their biometric information was sent to
Apple's servers or any third party server. Rather, Plaintiffs
expressly alleged that the information was stored locally on
Plaintiffs' own devices. Second, the trial court held that
Plaintiffs did not allege that Apple stored any of Plaintiffs'
biometric data in Apple databases. Third, the trial court held that
it was clear Plaintiffs voluntarily chose to use Face ID and Touch
ID features, and could delete their biometric information from
their devices if they chose. On February 2, 2022, Plaintiffs filed
a timely notice of appeal. Id. at *11.

The Illinois Appellate Court's Decision

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal
of Plaintiffs' complaint. Addressing the issue of "possession," the
Appellate Court explained that the term was not defined in the BIPA
statute. Id. at *16. Plaintiffs argued that Apple 'possesse[d]"
their information because Apple software collected and analyzed
their information. Id. at *17. Rejecting Plaintiffs' argument, the
Appellate Court opined that based on the facts alleged by
Plaintiffs, it seemed as though Apple designed these features with
the express purpose of handing control to the user. Id. at *17-18.
The Appellate Court also noted that these features were completely
elective, explaining that the user must undertake a series of
affirmative steps in order to use them. Id. Finally, the Appellate
Court found that Plaintiffs' arguments were not persuasive since
Plaintiffs alleged that the information is stored on the users' own
individual devices, and that users may delete the information and
disable the features at their convenience. Accordingly, the
Appellate Court held that Plaintiffs failed to properly allege that
Apple possessed their biometric information.

Turning to the issue of whether Apple collected and captured
Plaintiffs' biometric information, the Appellate Court explained
that these terms were also not defined in the BIPA statute. Id. at
*20. In support of their proposed definitions, Plaintiffs cited a
BIPA class action in the employment context, where the employee
plaintiff was required to use the biometric scanner or lose her
job. Id. at *22-23 (citations omitted). Rejecting Plaintiffs'
argument, the Court noted that the biometric features in this care
were wholly optional, the information was stored exclusively on
Plaintiffs' devices, and Plaintiffs could delete the information at
will. Further, the Court noted that Plaintiffs specifically alleged
that the information is stored only on their devices. Accordingly,
the Appellate Court held that Plaintiffs failed to properly allege
that Apple captured and collected their biometric information.

In conclusion, the Appellate Court summarized its findings as
follows: "[P]laintiffs do not dispute that the user's biometric
information is stored on the user's own device; that Apple does not
collect or store this information on a separate server or device;
that these features are completely optional; that the user is the
sole entity deciding whether or not to use these features; that, to
enable the features, the user employs his or her own device to
capture and collect his or her own biometric information on that
device; that, to utilize these features, the user must undertake a
number of steps, which are all documented in photos in plaintiffs'
complaint; and that the user has the power to delete this biometric
information from the device, at any time, without negatively
impacting the device." Id. at *22-23. Accordingly, the Appellate
Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' BIPA
class action.

Implications For Employers

Facial recognition technology is rapidly becoming more prevalent in
both the employment and consumer contexts. This decision
underscores the importance of carefully analyzing the allegations
in biometric privacy class action pleadings. In situations where
users maintain control over their own biometric data, this may be a
helpful decision to seek an early exit from the lawsuit. Finally,
Apple's victory further provides some optimism for companies
defending biometric privacy class actions, as the recent tide of
key decisions has largely been adverse to defendants. [GN]

APPLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that a new class action has been filed
against Apple Inc. by Joaquin Serrano of Philadelphia Pennsylvania,
to seek redress for Apple's systematic violations of state
wiretapping, privacy, and consumer fraud laws.

According to the official court filing, Serrano's lawyers claim
that "This case relates to a flagrant violation of consumer
privacy. Quite simply, Apple unlawfully records and uses consumers'
personal information and activity on its consumer mobile devices
and applications ("apps"), even after consumers explicitly indicate
through Apple's mobile device settings that they do not want their
data and information shared. This activity amounts to an enormous
wealth of data that Apple collects and uses for its financial
gain.

Consumers care about keeping their data private and are demanding
more control over their data. Consumers are also becoming
increasingly concerned that their private information is being used
without their knowledge or permission.

As privacy concerns have grown, Apple has sought to position itself
as a leader by touting how its mobile devices allow users to
control the information they share. For example, the "Apple Privacy
Policy" states:

"At Apple, we respect your ability to know, access, correct,
transfer, restrict the processing of, and delete your personal
data."

The Apple App Store "User Privacy and Data Use" page similarly
declares:

"The App Store is designed to be a safe and trusted place for users
to discover apps created by talented developers around the world.
Apps on the App Store are held to a high standard for privacy,
security, and content because nothing is more important than
maintaining users' trust." (emphasis added).

Apple even provides specific instructions to users to explain how
to control what data Apple collects. Apple tells users to turn off
"Allow Apps to Request to Track" if settings if they so wish.

In addition, Apple makes an outright promise in its mobile devices'
settings: Apple states that it will "disable [the sharing of]
Device Analytics altogether" if a consumer toggles or turns off
"Share iPhone Analytics," on an iPhone, or similar settings on
other Apple mobile devices, like the iPad.

Yet, Apple does not honor users' requests to restrict data
sharing.

A recent test performed by two independent app developers at the
software company Mysk revealed that even when consumers actively
change their "privacy settings" and take Apple's instructions to
protect their privacy, Apple still records, tracks, collects, and
monetizes consumers' analytics data, including browsing history and
activity information. These experts and their testing further
showed that Apple continues to access consumers' app usage, app
browsing communications, and personal information in its
proprietary apps, including the App Store, Apple Music, Apple TV,
Books, and Stocks, even when consumers have affirmatively turned
off "Allow Apps to Request to Track" and/or "Share [Device]
Analytics" on their privacy controls.

Gizmodo broke the story on the issue on November 8, 2022. The issue
has been reported in multiple news outlets since Gizmodo's report,
including The Verge, Engadget, and Fox News.  As of the date of
this filing, Apple still has not responded to or publicly refuted
the reports.

Apple's practices deceive consumers and its collection of data of
users who have specifically followed Apple's instructions to
prevent sharing of its data constitute an unlawful interception of
a communication and violate, inter alia, Pennsylvania's wiretapping
laws.

Plaintiff is an individual whose mobile app usage was tracked by
Apple after affirmatively electing to turn off the "Allow Apps to
Request to Track" and/or "Share [Device] Analytics" options.

Apple, through its tracking and hoarding of data, collected and
monetized consumer information without Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers' consent.

Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable relief on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated Apple device users in Pennsylvania
(the "Class"), arising from Apple's knowing and unauthorized
copying, taking, use, and tracking of consumers' communications and
activity, and its knowing and unauthorized invasion of consumer
privacy."

Below is one of the photo images presented in the Class Action
regarding Apple's Privacy ad.

2 Apple Billboard ad presented in class action lawsuit

Causes for Action

Count 1: Violation of Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Act
Count 2: Violation of Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law
Count 3: Invasion of Privacy - Intrusion Upon Seclusion
Count 4: Breach of Implied Contract
Count 5: Unjust Enrichment [GN]

APPLE INC: Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set March 16, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------
Francie Swidler, writing for NBC Los Angeles, reports that If you
purchased an Apple MacBook laptop equipped with a certain kind of
keyboard between the years of 2015 and 2019, you may be eligible
for a payment of up to $395 as part of a nationwide class-action
settlement. But the clock is ticking to file a claim -- and not
everyone with those MacBooks will receive a payout.

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

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

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

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

Here's what to know.

What Exactly is a 'Butterfly' Keyboard?

In 2015, Apple released its newly designed MacBook, saying it had
been "reinvented in every way to deliver the thinnest and lightest
Macs ever," an announcement from the company stated. "Every
component of the new MacBook has been meticulously redesigned to
create a Mac(R) that weighs just two pounds and is 13.1 mm thin."

The announcement goes on to describe the laptop's newly designed
butterfly keyboard, noting that such a thin MacBook design meant
"completely re-engineering how a notebook keyboard works."

According to Apple, the keyboard's butterfly mechanism is "40%
thinner than a traditional keyboard scissor mechanism, yet four
times more stable, providing greater precision no matter where your
finger strikes the key."

But complaints and reports indicate the keyboard often
malfunctioned.

A report from the BBC indicates that Apple in 2018, after several
complaints, launched a "Keyboard Service Program" for affected
laptops that covers keyboard repairs for four years after the date
of purchase.

However, the BBC reports, "customers said the replacements often
had the same issues."

According to tech website 9to5 Mac, Apple in 2020 phased out the
butterfly keyboard and reverted to using standard scissor
switches.

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

How Do I Know if My MacBook is Part of the Settlement?
According to the settlement website, "The Settlement Class includes
all persons and entities in the United States who purchased, other
than for resale, one or more of the following Apple MacBook
models:"

MacBook (Retina, 12-inch, Early 2015)
MacBook (Retina, 12-inch, Early 2016)
MacBook (Retina, 12-inch, 2017)
MacBook Air (Retina, 13-inch, 2018)
MacBook Air (Retina, 13-inch, 2019)
MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2016, Two Thunderbolt 3 Ports)
MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2017, Two Thunderbolt 3 Ports)
MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2019, Two Thunderbolt 3 Ports)
MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2016, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports)
MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2017, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports)
MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2016)
MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2017)
MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2018, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports)
MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2018)
MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2019, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports)
MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2019)

The settlement website also indicates that the suit includes "all
purchasers, including individuals, corporations, and other
entities."

You can quickly determine the make/model of your MacBook here.

How Do I File a Claim?
Eligible purchasers received a notice via email or postcard with a
Unique ID and Pin number in order to file a claim, the settlement
website states. Those who did not receive that information can file
a claim.

However, "if you are not sure whether you are included, or if you
believe you should be included but didn't receive a notification,
"you can call the Claims Administrator at 1-855-579-1311 for more
information," the settlement website states.

Note that proof of purchase and the serial number of your MacBook
laptop are required for the claim to be approved.

Corporations or individuals that purchased 25 or more affected
models must follow a special process to facilitate claim filing and
email the Settlement Administrator for assistance, the settlement
says.

How Much Could I Get?
According to the Settlement litigation website, how much you could
get from the settlement ranges from $50 to $395, and depends on how
many times you attempted to get either your entire keyboard or
individual keycaps replaced.

"The amount Settlement Class Members will receive (and what they
must do to get a payment) depends on which of the three categories
they fall into and how many eligible Settlement Class Members are
ultimately determined to fall into each category," the website
specifically details.

Here's a breakdown of each of those categories. Note that all
keyboard replacements must have been done within four years of
purchase, the fine print in the settlement states:

Group 1: Those who obtained two or more Topcase -- or full keyboard
-- replacements, will receive a payment without the need to submit
a claim, the website states.

"Settlement Class Members in this group will receive an email or
postcard Notice confirming eligibility for payment and requesting
confirmation of contact information."

According to the site, class members in this group "will receive an
initial payment of $300, but the actual payment could be more or
less, depending on the number of eligible Settlement Class Members
in each category."

The maximum payment for Group 1 is $395, the site says.

"A Settlement Class Member can meet the eligibility requirements
for this group and receive payment if they obtain two or more
Topcase Replacements anytime until November 28, 2024," the
settlement states.

Group 2: Those who obtained only one Topcase replacement "must
submit a claim to receive payment," the settlement administrator
says, "and must declare that the repair did not resolve their
keyboard issues."

"The maximum payment for Group 2 Settlement Class Members is $125,
but it may be less," according to the settlement.

Group 3: "Those who obtained one of more keycap replacements must
submit a claim to receive payment," and "must declare that the
repair did not resolve their keyboard issues."

The maximum payment for Group 3 is $50, the settlement indicates.

According to the settlement administrator, any Topcase or Keycap
replacements or repairs must have been completed by Apple, or an
Apple Authorized Service Provider in order for a claim to be
eligible for payout.

My MacBook is Part of the Class-Action Suit, But I Never Got My
Keyboard Replaced. Can I File a Claim?
You can file a claim, but you won't be eligible for a payout, the
settlement says.

"If you own a Class Computer and did not obtain a Keycap
Replacement or Topcase Replacement within the first four years of
ownership, you are not eligible for payment," the settlement
notes.

"Apple's Keyboard Service Program provides four years of protection
and remains available for any Class Member who may experience
future issues within four years of purchase," the settlement goes
on to say. In some cases, the settlement states, Apple may have a
record of your repairs.

When is the Deadline to File a Claim?
All claims must be submitted electronically, e-mailed or postmarked
"no later than March 6, 2023," the settlement says.

How and When Will I Get a Payment?
A "Final Approval Hearing" is set to be held March 16, 2023, the
settlement website states.

"If the Settlement is approved, there may be appeals. The appeal
process can take time. If there is no appeal, your settlement
benefit will be processed promptly. Please be patient."

For those eligible to receive a payment, the settlement indicates
Apple may reach out to eligible purchasers for information on how
to receive a payment. If Apple does not have a repair on record,
Class Members should submit a claim form, the settlement website
states. [GN]

ATLANTA, GA: Court Orders Oldaker to Amend Complaint v. Giles
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YANIRA YESENIA OLDAKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. THOMAS
P. GILES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-224 (WLS) (M.D.
Ga.), Judge W. Louis Sands, Sr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division, order the Plaintiffs
to amend their complaint to substitute the name of the real
parties.

On Dec. 19, 2022, the Court entered an Order ordering the
Plaintiffs to show cause as to why their Consolidated Second
Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief and for Damages ("SAC") should not be dismissed as to
"Unserved Defendants" identified therein for the Plaintiffs'
failure to provide the Court with evidence that service of process
has been properly executed on the Unserved Defendants.

The Plaintiffs' Response to Order to Show Cause was timely filed on
Dec. 30, 2022.

Defendants Marteka George, Mia Mines and William Rabiou were served
in their official capacities as officers of Irwin County Detention
Center ("ICDC") by service on the state-created governmental
entity, ICDC. The Plaintiffs state that they served David Paulk,
who accepted service on behalf of ICDC, in his capacity as Warden
of the facility. Plaintiffs further state that Mr. Paulk's position
as Warden is the functional equivalent of the chief executive
officer per Rule 4(j)(2).

The Plaintiffs admit that they inadvertently failed to serve
Georgia, Mines, and Rabiou in their individual capacities, but
request that the Court uses its discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m)2 and allows them a short extension of time in order to
properly serve these Defendants.

The Plaintiffs contend it is premature to dismiss the claims
against "FNU" Hughes, "FNU" Smith, "FNU" Coney, "FNU" Hanes, "FNU"
Faison, "FNU" Battle, "FNU" Vaughn, "FNU" Scott, and "FNU" Slack,
in their individual capacities and official capacities as ICDC
officers (collectively the "Unnamed Defendants") and that it is
also premature to dismiss their claims against Unknown ICDC
Officers ##1-X, in their individual and official capacities
("Unknown Defendants"). They contend that courts, including those
in this circuit, have allowed plaintiffs to name unknown defendants
"until reasonable discovery permits the true defendants to be
identified. They request that they be given a reasonable time to
identify the Unnamed and the Unknown Defendants during the
discovery period of the case to effect service on the Unnamed and
the Unknown Defendants.

Upon full review and consideration of the record, Judge Sands finds
that the Plaintiffs have properly served Defendants George, Mines
and Rabiou in their official capacities as officers of ICDC. He
further finds that their Response and requests with respect to
these Defendants in their individual capacities, the Unnamed
Defendants, and the Unknown Defendants are well-taken.

Accordingly, Judge Sands orders the Plaintiffs to serve process on
Defendants George, Mines and Rabiou, in their individual
capacities, consistent with the Rules within 30 days of entry of
his Order. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of the SAC as
to these Defendants, in their individual capacity, without further
notice or proceeding

Judge Sands further orders the Plaintiffs to amend their SAC to
substitute the name of the real parties as soon as the identity of
the Unnamed and/or the Unknown Defendants are known, or should
reasonably become known, but in any event, before the close of
discovery.

The Plaintiffs are to serve process on Unnamed Defendants and the
Unknown Defendants consistent with the Rules at the time they amend
the SAC. Their failure to amend their SAC and effect service on any
of the Unnamed Defendants and/or the Unknown Defendants before the
close of discovery may result in dismissal of the SAC as to any of
such Defendants, without further notice or proceeding.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdzjz7yt from Leagle.com.


BARCLAYS BANK: Among Class Action Target of Litigation Funders
--------------------------------------------------------------
City A.M. reports that the UK's top banks are increasingly being
targeted with class-action lawsuits as litigation funders back
claims against some of Britain's largest lenders in their pursuit
of high returns.

Banks listed on the FTSE 100 index are currently facing at least
109 class-action lawsuits in multiple countries around the world,
according to analysis by law firm RPC.

London-headquartered Barclays is bearing the brunt of the class
actions wave facing at least 41 separate claims, RPC's analysis
shows.

HSBC is subject 31 collective-action cases, while NatWest is facing
28 class-actions of its own, the law firm said.  

The spate of class actions signals litigation funders are
increasingly looking towards wealthy big banks in their efforts to
generate greater returns from the cases they bankroll.

Litigation funders, who are generally backed by hedge funds and
private equity funds, generally take a cut of any winnings.

Class actions, which are brought forward on behalf of huge numbers
of claimants, are seen as particularly attractive to litigation
funders due to the large payouts on offer.

Due to the nature of class actions being brought forward on behalf
of large and disparate groups of individuals, third-party financing
is usually required to get any claim off the ground.

The growth of the UK's litigation funding sector in turn poses a
threat to big banks and other UK corporates in exposing them to a
greater risk of legal action.

RPC partner Daniel Hemming warned "banks and other large UK
corporates are likely to face a gradual rise in class actions" as
he claimed litigation funders are now "front of the queue to back"
collective claims.

He also warned the growth of heavily backed third-party financiers
means "banks and other large corporates can no longer rely on the
prohibitive cost of these cases putting off potential claimants".

Hemming noted that the global economic downturn could see investors
plough more money into litigation funds, as they seek out
counter-cyclical investments that are not linked to traditional
financial markets.

"Coupled with an increase in asset price volatility, a recessionary
environment and litigation funders looking for more cases, over the
short to medium term it is realistic to expect the number of class
and group actions to grow globally," Hemming said.  

Rising interest rates could however hinder the global litigation
funding sector, in making it harder for private equity funds to
raise money.

The 109 class-actions against FTSE 100 banks include 41 related to
the Libor scandal and a further 18 related to breaches of the US
Anti-Terrorism Act.

The Libor scandal saw leading banks, including Barclays, seek to
fix the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR), through which
interest rates were calculated until 2021, by submitting false
rates.

Those banks that participated in Libor manipulation have faced a
series of high-profile class action lawsuits, particularly in the
US.

Leading British banks that have previously processes payments to
countries including Iran and Afghanistan have also faced claims
over allegations of assisting terrorist financing.

Hemming warned top UK companies will likely soon face a wave of ESG
related claims in the near future.

"It does not take much analysis to conclude that we will see
ESG-related claims being added to this list over the next five
years," the lawyer said. [GN]

BASS PRO: W.D. Missouri Denies Bid to Dismiss Slaughter Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENT SLAUGHTER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. BASS PRO, INC., BPS DIRECT, LLC,
BASS PRO OUTDOOR WORLD, LLC, BASS PRO GROUP, LLC, GREAT AMERICAN
OUTDOORS GROUP, LLC, GREAT OUTDOORS GROUP, LLC, AMERICAN SPORTSMAN
HOLDINGS CO., Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-03174-RK (W.D. Mo.),
Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, Southern Division, denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's class action
complaint.

The Defendants manufacture, market, distribute, and sell "Redhead
Lifetime Guarantee All-Purpose Wool Socks." The Socks are sold with
a "lifetime guarantee" or a lifetime warranty meaning that
purchasers can return them to be replaced at no cost. They are
advertised as "The Last Sock You'll Ever Need to Buy," and that "if
they ever wear out, just return them for a FREE replacement."

In early 2021, the Defendants began replacing the Socks under the
lifetime warranty with wool socks that only have a 60-day warranty
("60-Day Socks"). The Plaintiff does not allege the 60-Day Socks
are materially different from the Socks, other than having only a
60-day warranty and a "distinctive stripe pattern." As a result, he
alleges that (1) the Defendants' representations about the lifetime
warranty for the Socks are false and the lifetime guarantee is a
"hollow promise," and, alternatively, (2) the Defendants breached
the lifetime warranty for the Socks by replacing the Socks under
the lifetime warranty with 60-Day Socks (rather than a new pair of
Socks).

Slaughter alleges that between 2014 and 2021 he purchased
approximately twelve pairs of the Socks. He alleges that the
lifetime warranty was a "material part" of his decision to purchase
them and that he "understood the terms of the Lifetime Warranty to
mean that whenever the Socks became worn, they would be replaced
with a new pair of Socks."

Beginning in approximately 2015, the Plaintiff periodically
returned two to four pairs of the Socks at a time. He states that
"on multiple occasions," the Defendants replaced the Socks under
the lifetime warranty by exchanging them for another pair of the
Socks (i.e., such that the replacement socks themselves came with
the same lifetime warranty as the originally purchased socks). In
early 2021, however, he alleges that he attempted to return four
pairs of the Socks but was told by the store's customer service
department that he would only be provided with the 60-Day Socks in
the exchange under the Socks' lifetime warranty.

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that on June 29, 2022, he purchased a
pair of the Socks online for $11.99, and that the Socks he received
were delivered without any packaging "reflecting the applicability
of a Lifetime Warranty in connection with those Socks," despite
having purchased the Socks after becoming aware of an advertisement
by Defendants to sell the Socks. He also alleges that he was
deceived by the fraudulent and misleading representations of the
Defendants that the Redhead Lifetime Guarantee All-Purpose Wool
Socks come with a Lifetime Warranty, a material factor in his
decision to purchase the Socks.

The Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint on July 20,
2022, asserting the following five claims both individually and on
behalf of a proposed class: Count I - violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"); Count II - breach of express
warranty; Count III - violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act;
Count IV - unjust enrichment; and Count V - fraud. He seeks inter
alia actual and statutory damages, disgorgement or other equitable
monetary relief, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's amended complaint must be
dismissed under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure
to state a claim.

The Defendants first argue that the Plaintiff's complaint must be
dismissed because he does not allege any harm or injury to the
extent he does not state, for example, that he has tried to return
any pair of socks (whether the Socks or 60-Day Socks) and has been
denied a replacement.

Judge Ketchmark considers this argument in the context of Rule
12(b)(1) as raising a question of the Plaintiff's Article III
standing and thus the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction. He finds
that the Plaintiff has demonstrated a particularized and actual or
imminent (non-speculative) injury-in-fact for purposes of
demonstrating Article III standing at this early stage.

Next, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff lacks Article III
standing to seek injunctive relief. The Plaintiff argues that he
has asserted an ongoing harm in that he cannot return the Socks he
purchased and receive the same but instead will only receive the
60-Day Socks. In essence, he argues he has an ongoing harm to the
extent the Defendants "will continue to refuse to honor the
lifetime warranty."

At the crux of this inquiry is whether the Plaintiff can
demonstrate a real and immediate threat that he could again suffer
similar injury in the future. For the same reasons as stated, Judge
Ketchmark finds that the Plaintiff's complaint adequately alleges
an injury sufficient to support Article III standing to pursue
injunctive relief at this early stage in the litigation.

Finally, the Defendants rely on the causation requirement of
Article III standing specifically as to Defendants Bass Pro, Inc.;
BPS Direct, LLC; Bass Pro Group, LLC; Great American Outdoors
Group, LLC; Great Outdoors Group, LLC; and American Sportsman
Holdings Co., and argue that the Plaintiff cannot demonstrate his
alleged injury is traceable to these Defendants.

However, Judge Ketchmark holds that the Plaintiff has alleged the
injury asserted is fairly traceable to all the named Defendants
sufficient to withstand the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack
of standing.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Ketchmark denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.

In addition to a Rule 12(b)(1) challenge, the Defendants also argue
that the Plaintiff's amended complaint must be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. They first argue that the
Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim for relief under the
MMPA.

Judge Ketchmark denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss Count I
for failure to state a claim. He finds that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged an ascertainable loss under the
benefit-of-the-bargain rule to state a claim under the MMPA and
survive the Defendants' motion to dismiss on this ground. He also
finds that the Plaintiff alleges with sufficient particularity the
who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged unlawful practices
under the MMPA.

Next, the Defendants argue the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for
breach of express warranty.

Judge Ketchmark again denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss
Count II for failure to state a claim. He finds that the
Defendants' argument for dismissal grounded in Section
400.2-719(1)(a) is unpersuasive and without merit. The Plaintiff
has sufficiently alleged facts that he provided sufficient pre-suit
notice as required by Missouri law to assert this warranty claim.
Lastly, the Plaintiff adequately alleges the Defendants breached
the express warranty to withstanding their motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6).

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff fails to state a warranty
claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 2301 et seq. in Count III because he fails to state a
breach-of-express-warranty claim in Count II. Because Judge
Ketchmark does not find the Plaintiff failed to state a warranty
claim under state law as set out, he also denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss Count III on the same basis.

Fourth, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff fails to state a
claim for unjust enrichment.

Judge Ketchmark denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss Count III
for failure to state a claim. He holds that the law is well-settled
that a claim for unjust enrichment is barred as a matter of law
where an express contract exists. The Defendants' argument that the
Plaintiff fails to plead unjust retention of the benefit is also
without merit.

The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim
for fraud. However, accepting the Plaintiff's allegations as true,
Judge Ketchmark finds the Defendants' arguments that the Plaintiff
fails to state a claim for common law fraud are without merit. The
Defendants' motion to dismiss Count V is therefore denied.

Finally, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff fails to state a
claim against many of the separately named defendants who are
identified as related corporate entities.

Judge Ketchmark notes that the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants acted individually or in concert, including through an
integrated corporate structure, to manufacture, market, and sell
the Socks. This, he says, is sufficient to withstand the
Defendants' motion to dismiss at this early pleading stage. Hence,
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the "related" Defendants is
denied.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Ketchmark denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/27uzmy66 from Leagle.com.


BEAUMONT PRODUCTS: Faces Keene Suit Over Mislabeled Soap Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caley Keene, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEAUMONT PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00018-DMR (N.D. Cal., Jan. 3, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's deceptive and misleading practices with respect to its
marketing and sale of its soap products in violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and State Consumer Protection
Statutes.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant made false representations
on the products' labels which lead reasonable consumers to believe
that the products are "natural." The Defendant's marketing efforts
stress the purported "natural" composition of their products.
Despite this representation, the products are not natural because
they include multiple synthetic ingredients. Specifically, the
products contain synthetic ingredients like Phenoxyethanol and
Ethylhexylglycerin, says the suit.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated and seeks to represent a Nationwide Class, a Multi-State
Consumer Class, and a California Class, seeks damages, interest
thereon, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, restitution, other
equitable relief, and disgorgement of all benefits Defendant has
enjoyed from its unlawful and/or deceptive business practices, as
alleged herein. In addition, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to
stop Defendant's unlawful conduct in the labeling and marketing of
the products.

Beaumont Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer products
designed for air care, general cleaning and personal care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

BOSWORTH COMPANY: Court Tosses Dickson Bid for Reconsideration
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN DICKSON,
Individually and on behalf of all others Similarly situated, v. THE
BOSWORTH COMPANY, LTD., Case No. 7:22-cv-00010-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration.

Initially, the Plaintiff's proposed definition of similarly
situated included possible employees from all eight departments.
Following his numerous filings of Supplemental Motions and
corresponding appendices, the Plaintiff conceded that his proposed
definition should be limited to employees from only six departments
-- HVAC Commercial Service, HVAC Residential Service, HVAC Install,
Electrical, Plumbing Service, and Water Treatment.

The Court acknowledges that Kevin Leyva and Jaime Madrid's
respective testimonies are not relevant to the determination of
whether the employees in the aforementioned six departments are
similarly situated. However, that does not alter the fact that the
Plaintiff failed to show that employees from the relevant six
departments are subject to similar payment methods, supervisors, or
overtime pay.

According to Ruben Rodriguez's declaration, the Defendant's
Operations Manager, Defendant does not have a company-wide
compensation policy, nor does it have a company-wide timekeeping
policy.

However, Mr. Rodriguez confirms Plaintiff's assertion that
non-supervisory employees of the relevant six departments are paid
based on:

   a. Their hours worked (time that [Defendant] bills to clients
      and non-billable time that is associated or tied to
      service/customer ticket system) along with miscellaneous
      non-billable time (such as attendance at mandatory
      meetings, cleaning a truck, shop-time, etc.) not directly
      tied to a service order all multiplied by their hourly
      rate; and/or

   b. Flat rate (i.e. a predetermined estimate of the number of
      hours a particular job or project is expected to take).

Despite this common payment method, each department has a separate
supervisor(s), and those departmental supervisors are responsible
for training employees "on how and when to record working time for
payroll purposes."

While Mr. Rodriguez stated that he oversees the training of the
departmental supervisors, which "is initially given by an internal
application administrator," "afterwards [training is] performed by
departmental supervisors."

The Court finds that variances between departments' timekeeping
methods due to their differing supervision to be significant.

Given the scope and differences of Plaintiff's proposed common
non-customary pay policy, the variances in supervisors, and
discrepancies between departments regarding timekeeping policies,
the Court continues -- in its discretion -- to find collective
treatment inappropriate and unfeasible.

On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Original Complaint against
Defendant, "a company that provides plumbing, HVAC electric, and
other services to its customers" in the Midland/Odessa, Texas area.
The Plaintiff brings a collective action for unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a helper and technician
("HVAC technician") in the HVAC Residential Service department from
approximately October 2017 to March 2021.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay him one and
one-half times his hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of
forty per week. Specifically, the Plaintiff claims he was not paid
for non-billable hours, or, in other words, the work he did while
at Defendant's place of business.

Bosworth has been providing the Permian Basin with quality air
conditioning, heating, air quality, plumbing and electrical
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GN7d29 at no extra charge.[CC]

BRERA HOLDINGS: Karp Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brera Holdings PLC disclosed in its Form F-1 Registration Statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10,
2023, that the Karp putative class suit is pending in the Southern
District of New York.

On August 5, 2022, the plaintiff, Ronald Karp commenced a putative
class action against Kiromic Biopharma, Inc. (Kiromic) and its
current or former officers and directors, among other defendants,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The allegations in the complaint, which the plaintiff filed on the
same day, center on alleged violations of federal securities laws
in relation to Kiromic's public stock offering that opened on or
about June 29, 2021 and closed on or about July 2, 2021 (the June
2021 Offering). The complaint alleges that the June 2021 Offering
documents contained untrue or material misleading
misrepresentations or omissions due to the failure of those
documents to disclose that the FDA had placed a clinical hold on
Kiromic's two Investigational New Drug (IND) applications. Pietro
Bersani, who has been nominated to serve as a member of our board
of directors, is individually named as a defendant in the complaint
due to his position as a member of Kiromic's board of directors and
chairman of the audit committee during the time relevant to the
allegations in the complaint. Mr. Bersani is also currently
Kiromic's chief executive officer.

The complaint prays for certification of the case as a class action
and judgment in favor of the named plaintiff and members of the
putative plaintiff class for an award against the defendants,
jointly and severally, for rescission (as appropriate) of amounts
paid for shares purchased in the June 2021 Offering or all damages
sustained in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest,
and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, among other relief.

On October 27, 2022, the court consolidated the action with the
Podmore action discussed below, appointed Ronald H. Karp, Ari Karp,
and Ethan Karp as Lead Plaintiff, and ordered the filing of a
consolidated amended class action complaint within 60 days.

As of December 14, 2022, this case was pending.

On October 3, 2022, the plaintiff, Joseph Podmore, commenced a
putative class action against Kiromic Biopharma, Inc. (Kiromic) and
its current or former officers and directors, among other
defendants, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The allegations in the complaint, which the
plaintiff filed on the same day, center on alleged violations of
federal securities laws in relation to Kiromic's public stock
offering that opened on or about June 29, 2021 and closed on or
about July 2, 2021 (the June 2021 Offering).

The complaint alleges that the June 2021 Offering documents
contained untrue or material misleading misrepresentations or
omissions due to the failure of those documents to disclose that
the FDA had placed a clinical hold on Kiromic's two Investigational
New Drug (IND) applications.

Pietro Bersani, who has been nominated to serve as a member of our
board of directors, is individually named as a defendant in the
complaint due to his position as a member of Kiromic's board of
directors and chairman of the audit committee during the time
relevant to the allegations in the complaint. Mr. Bersani is also
currently Kiromic's chief executive officer.

The complaint prays for certification of the case as a class action
and judgment in favor of the named plaintiff and members of the
putative plaintiff class for an award against the defendants,
jointly and severally, for rescission (as appropriate) of amounts
paid for shares purchased in the June 2021 Offering or all damages
sustained in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest,
and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, among other relief.

On October 27, 2022, the court consolidated the action with the
Karp action discussed above, appointed Ronald H. Karp, Ari Karp,
and Ethan Karp as Lead Plaintiff, and ordered the filing of a
consolidated amended class action complaint within 60 days.

As of December 14, 2022, this case was pending.

Brera Holdings PLC is an Irish holding company focused on
expanding
social impact football by developing a global portfolio of
emerging
football clubs



BRINKER RESTAURANT: Gomez Sues Over Failure to Pay Premium Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a Virginia
Corporation; BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL PAYROLL COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware Limited
Partnership and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-09458 (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the California Labor Code and California Business &
Profession Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from approximately February 2005 to the present to perform
duties that include preparing and cooking food for guests as well
as cleaning grills and other equipment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt restaurant
employees with uninterrupted 30-minute meal period throughout their
employment with the Defendants, as well as with a second meal
period on shifts when they worked in excess of 10.0 hours. The
Defendants also failed to provide them with rest periods for every
4 hours worked. Allegedly, these are because the Defendants
regularly understaffed their restaurants resulting in their being
unable to take legally required meal periods and rest periods.
Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide them with an
additional hour of premium pay for each workday in which a meal
period violation occurred, and an additional hour of premium pay
for each workday in which rest period violation occurred. As a
result of their failure to pay meal and rest periods premium wages
owed, the Defendants maintained inaccurate payroll records, and
issued inaccurate wage statements, says the suit.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated non-exempt
restaurant employees, the Plaintiff seeks for compensatory,
consequential, general and special damages according to proof
pursuant to Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512, 516, and 558, as well
as statutory penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 226 et seq.
The Plaintiff also seeks for injunctive relief and restitution to
them of all money and/or property unlawfully acquired by the
Defendants, for prejudgment interest on all due and unpaid wages,
for attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.

The Corporate Defendants operate a chain of Chili’s restaurants
in Carson, California and the rest of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Tel: (424) 292-2350
          Fax: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com

CALIFORNIA: Judge Wants AG to Participate in Coleman Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP on Jan. 9 disclosed that Coleman
v. Newsom is the ongoing class action lawsuit brought by RBGG on
behalf of all persons incarcerated in California state prisons with
serious mental illness. The case challenges inadequate mental
health care systems that place incarcerated persons at serious risk
of death, injury and prolonged suffering.

On January 6, 2023, Chief Judge Kimberly Mueller of the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of California issued an order
inviting the United States Attorney General to resume participation
in the case. The Judge pointed to "two ongoing serious violations"
that prompt the invitation. The first, is failure to provide
sufficient mental health staff to care for persons with serious
mental illness in CDCR custody. The second is failure to implement
necessary suicide prevention measures despite years of reports
identifying the needed precautions. The Judge requested a response
from the United States Attorney General within 30 days. [GN]

CANADA: Indian Boarding Home Survivors Set to Get Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meaghan Brackenbury, writing for CBC News, reports that indigenous
northerners who were housed in private boarding homes to attend
public schools in the latter half of the 20th century could soon be
eligible to receive thousands of dollars in compensation.

The Canadian government and lawyers for survivors reached an
agreement-in-principle last month to settle a multi-billion dollar
class-action lawsuit over the operation of boarding homes for
Indigenous students attending public schools between 1951 and
1992.

David Klein is a managing partner with Klein Lawyers, the
Toronto-based counsel handling the class action. In an interview
with CBC News, he said many of those children experienced abuse and
a loss of identity.

"The children were not only displaced from their families, they
were displaced from their community, their language and their
culture," he said.

The federally-run program saw an estimated 40,000 Indigenous youth
placed in non-Indigenous boarding homes across Canada, including in
the North.

That number comes from thousands of archival documents provided to
the class action's legal team by Canada as part of litigation.

In the N.W.T. (which also included Nunavut at the time), Klein said
one document from 1961 shows around 70 children were placed in
boarding homes that year. Most were from Hay River, with several
others from Fort Good Hope and Tulita, among other communities.

Indigenous children in the Yukon were also part of the program.
Klein was unable to provide hard numbers by publication deadline,
but said based on "limited information," the number is probably
higher than that for the N.W.T.

Payouts - up to $210,000 per person - to start as early as 2024
According to the agreement-in-principle, there will be no cap on
compensation in the final deal. This means every class member who
applies and is approved will receive payment.

Claimants will receive a baseline payment of $10,000 if they were
placed in a boarding home. They will then be eligible for anywhere
between $10,000 and $200,000 in additional payments, depending on
the severity of any abuse experienced.

"Based on the number of class members and where we believe they
will place within the compensation grid, we expect the total
compensation to be approximately $2.2 billion," Klein said.

The legal team still has to finalize the settlement agreement. Once
complete, they will reach out to class members to share their views
on the terms.

Members will also be welcome to attend the subsequent court
approval hearing, either in-person or virtually.

"If everything goes according to plan, we hope to have the claims
centre opened before the end of this year, with compensation
flowing to class members sometime in 2024," Klein said.

Anyone who believes they qualify as a class member can contact
Klein Lawyers for more information through an online form. [GN]

CANADA: Suit Mulled Over Saskatchewan First Nations' Dental Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shari Narine, writing for Penticton Herald, reports that almost 50
years after her first experience with a dentist, Lisa Crooked Neck
remains traumatized.

"I must have been six or seven," she recalled of her first
encounter with a "very mean and very rude" wife and husband dentist
team at her school on Ministikwan Lake Cree Nation in
Saskatchewan.

"One by one they'd come and get us, and that lady, the wife, would
hold our hand, not knowing where we're going, take us to the
library, say, 'Sit down.' So we sat down. Not knowing our teeth
were going to be looked at. Right then and there, they're looking
at our teeth. And all I see are big needles and then a lot of
cleaning and then, all of a sudden, I feel needles in my mouth.
'You feel this?' (the dentist asked). Of course, I felt it and they
still drilled without waiting."

Crooked Neck, who is now 55, says her teeth have hurt and been
sensitive as long as she can remember, and she can't see a dentist
without fear.

"I get these flashbacks where I'm sitting in this chair. I'm
clenched to the chair. I'm actually pinching myself not to feel the
pain that I felt. When I close my eyes, I'm like a kid sitting in
that chair. It's so traumatizing," she said.

Crooked Neck is joined by Karen McCullum from Peter Ballantyne Cree
Nation as representative plaintiffs in a potential class action to
address the alleged inferior and harmful dental work provided to
First Nations residents in Saskatchewan between the years of 1960
and 1980 under the authority of the federal government.

Dental care for First Nations and Inuit is covered by Indigenous
Services Canada's Non-Insured Health Benefits (NIHB).

The Band Members Advocacy Alliance Association of Canada (BMAAAC)
has taken first steps toward a potential class action and is asking
impacted Saskatchewan First Nations residents to register with
them. A "prominent" but unnamed Calgary law firm is providing
assistance, says BMAAAC in its announcement, made in late
December.

Crooked Neck says the majority of members in her community suffered
through poor dental work. If their teeth weren't pulled, then
cavities were filled with "metal." Crooked Neck has a hard time
understanding how children, who lived off wild meat and rarely ate
candy, could have had cavities.

"All our fillings were metal. When I went back, like a couple years
back, the dentist told me to replace all these fillings because
these are not good because they could cause illnesses. They're like
toxic. At that time, my fillings came all out and I replaced them,"
she said.

The mercury in the metal or amalgam fillings is the concern.

Crooked Neck has tried to convince her sister to get her fillings
replaced as well, but she won't go to a dentist.

"I asked my sister does she still have her old fillings? 'Of
course, I do,' she said. 'Oh my God, get them changed because they
could be toxic. That's what the dentist told me.' My sister said,
'What traumatizes me is what I went through. They pulled out my
teeth and I looked at the bucket full of teeth there.'"

Crooked Neck says in discussions she's had with surrounding
communities, she's come to understand that Ministikwan Lake Cree
Nation is not unique.

Makwa Sahgaiehcan First Nation Chief Ronald Mitsuing says there was
no dentist near his community so instead their dental concerns were
dealt with by a doctor at Loon Lake hospital in the 1960s and
'70s.

"He wouldn't fix our teeth. He would just pull them out. So we have
a lot of people around here with missing teeth like me," said
Mitsuing.

Now members have access to a dentist in Meadow Lake, he says, about
60 km away, and a band member does dentistry for the reserve's
youth.

As for why so little concern was shown by the federal government
all those years ago when it came to dental care, Mitsuing said,
"That I do not understand…I don't understand why we don't get the
same kind of care as anybody else."

Mitsuing is in full support of a class action.

"I've actually been talking about this for quite a few years," said
Crooked Neck, who raised the issue with Rob Louie, president of
BMAAAC. "I was talking one evening with my sister and said, 'You
know? Something needs to be done. They need to be accountable, as
well as compensate the people for what we've been through with our
teeth.'"

While the class action is aimed at First Nations in Saskatchewan,
Louie says he's received calls from First Nations in Alberta about
dental care concerns as well.

"If it appears that the scope of the class action needs to be
expanded, it will be expanded," he said.

While a compensation figure has yet to be determined, Louie says
the threshold for a class action to move forward is a minimum $5
million.

"We anticipate resistance from the federal government throughout
the class action proceeding, whether it's accessing federal records
that will confirm the accounts of Saskatchewan First Nation members
or just the names of all those involved in the alleged negligence
and harms done to the members of this class action," he said.

Louie points out that many of those impacted and traumatized by
poor dental care are now Elders.

Contact communications@bmaaac.org for more information. [GN]

CD PROJEKT: Settles Cyberpunk 2077 Class Action for $1.85 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leah J. Williams, writing for gameshub, reports that a lawsuit
filed against studio CD Projekt Red by disgruntled investors,
spurned by the rocky launch of Cyberpunk 2077, has been settled
with a significant payment of US $1.85 million in damages.

The class-action lawsuit, filed in Manhattan on behalf of company
investors, alleged CD Projekt Red knowingly released a ‘virtually
unplayable' game riddled with bugs, which forced several stores to
delist the title and offer refunds to players. This was alleged to
have damaged the reputation of the company, and caused financial
harm to investors, who believed in CD Projekt Red's work.

A year on from the filing, CD Projekt Red has chosen to end
proceedings with a settlement agreement, paid for by the company's
insurer. In a statement shared on the CD Projekt Red website, the
studio stated the reason for the settlement was largely monetary,
as it did not wish to progress the case within the US court system.
In addition, it accepted the provisions laid out by its insurer,
and the recommendations of lawyers on both sides.

Everyone who purchased or held shares in CD Projekt Red during the
2020 period is eligible to apply for settlement funds, with the
total amount being split amongst all investors. This will equate to
around US $0.49 per eligible share.

At this stage, it doesn't appear the settlement will massively
impact the company and its day-to-day operation. CD Projekt Red
currently has a number of major products in the works, including
sequels to Cyberpunk 2077 and The Witcher, as well as other
spin-offs and remakes. It likely hopes these projects will help to
‘right the ship' and restore the company's reputation as it
rebuilds in the wake of the Cyberpunk 2077 disaster.

The conclusion of this particular class action will clear the way
for the company to refocus on development -- although CD Projekt
Red likely has more hurdles to overcome as the dust of Cyberpunk
2077 clears. Regardless of what's in store, we'll hear more from
the game in 2023, as its concluding Phantom Liberty expansion is
set for launch this year. [GN]

CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU: Mar. 31 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.K., et al., v.
CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00004-PB (D.N.H.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that:

   a. Change the deadline for filing a class certification
      motion to March 31, 2023; and

   b. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems
      just and proper in the circumstances.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GsLCKS at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michelle Wangerin, Esq.
          Kay E. Drought, Esq.
          NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGAL ASSISTANCE
          154 High Street
          Portsmouth, NH 03801
          Telephone: (603) 431-7411
          Facsimile: (603) 431-8025
          E-mail: mwangerin@nhla.org
                  kdrought@nhla.org

                - and -

          Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq.
          Henry R. Klementowicz, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
          NEW HAMPSHIRE
          18 Low Avenue
          Concord, NH 03301
          Telephone: (603) 224-5591
          E-mail: gilles@aclu-nh.org
                  henry@aclu-nh.org

                - and -

          Jennifer A. Eber, Esq.
          Mia A. Fry, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER-NH, INC.
          64 North Main Street, Suite 2
          Concord, NH 03301-4913
          Telephone: (603) 228-0432
          Facsimile: (603) 225-2077
          E-mail: jennifere@drcnh.org
                  miaf@drcnh.org

                - and -

          Ira Lustbader, Esq.
          Nicole Taykhman, Esq.
          Kathleen Simon, Esq.
          Shira Wisotsky, Esq.
          Carolyn Hite, Esq.
          CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC.
          88 Pine Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 683-2210
          Facsimile: (212) 683-4015
          E-mail: ilustbader@childrensrights.org
                  ntaykhman@childrensrights.org
                  ksimon@childrensrights.org
                  swisotsky@childrensrights.org
                  chite@childrenrights.org

                - and -

          Konrad L. Cailteux, Esq.
          Katheryn Maldonado, Esq.
          Kathleen Stanaro, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
          E-mail: Konrad.Cailteux@weil.com
                  Katheryn.Maldonado@weil.com
                  Kathleen.Stanaro@weil.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John M. Formella, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Ramsey, Esq.
          Nathan W. Kenison-Marvin, Esq.
          NEW HAMPSHIRE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          Civil Bureau
          Office of the Attorney General
          New Hampshire Department of Justice
          33 Capitol Street
          Concord, NH 03301-6397
          Telephone: (603) 271-3650
          E-mail: Jennifer.s.ramsey@doj.nh.gov

                - and -

          Philip J. Peisch, Esq.
          Caroline M. Brown, Esq.
          Julia M. Siegenberg, Esq.
          BROWN & PEISCH PLLC
          1233 20th St. NW, Suite 505
          Washington, DC 20036
          E-mail: ppeisch@brownandpeisch.com

CITIZENS BANK: Court Modifies Class Cert. Sched Order in Chirchir
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. HABIBA CHIRCHIR, on
behalf of herself and a similarly situated class of persons, v.
CITIZENS BANK, N.A. d/b/a Citizens One Home Loans, Case No.
3:20-cv-00416 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert C. Chambers
entered an order modifying scheduling order to extend time for the
Plaintiff filing motion for class certification:

   1. The last day for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class
      certification shall be March 8, 2023.

   2. The Defendant's response shall be filed within 28 days of
      the filing of the motion for class certification.

   3. The Plaintiff’s reply will be due 14 days of the filing of
      the response.

Citizens offers personal and business banking, student loans, home
equity products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ix45IL at no extra charge.[CC]


CLEANSPARK INC: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of
CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLSK) against certain of its officers and
directors.

If you are a current, long-term shareholder of CleanSpark holding
shares before December 10, 2020, you may have standing to hold
CleanSpark harmless from the alleged harm caused by the Company's
officers and directors by making them personally responsible. You
may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate
governance to prevent future wrongdoing. You can click or copy and
paste the link below in a browser to join this action:

https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/cleanspark

Recently the court denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss
a shareholder class action lawsuit pending against CleanSpark and
certain of its officers. According to a federal securities lawsuit,
the Company failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company
had overstated its customer and contract figures; (2) that several
of the Company's recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related
party transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you are interested in learning more about the investigation,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.

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

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

CONSUMER CREDIT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Pinn TCPA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLY PINN, Plaintiff v. CONSUMER CREDIT COUNSELING
FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-04048-DMR
(N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss Pinn's first amended class action
complaint.

Defendants Consumer Credit Counseling Foundation ("CCCF"); National
Budget Planners of South Florida, Inc. ("NBP"); and Ishwinder
Judge, an individual, move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Pinn's FAC. In this putative class
action, Pinn challenges the Defendants' alleged practice of making
unsolicited telemarketing phone calls to telephones of individuals
who have registered their phone numbers on the national Do Not Call
registry.

Pinn is a United States resident. Her residential telephone has
been registered on the national Do Not Call registry for over 10
years. CCCF is a Florida corporation that does business in
California. It operates as a non-profit company and purports to
offer credit counseling services and debt management plans on a
non-profit basis. NBP is a Florida corporation that is registered
with the California Secretary of State as a Florida corporation as
having the same office as CCCF. Judge is CCCF's CEO, Secretary, and
Chief Financial Officer. Pinn alleges on information and belief
that he is CCCF's sole owner, officer, and employee. She further
alleges that all CCCF's conduct alleged in the FAC is necessarily
controlled, carried out by, and/or attributable to Judge.

In April 2022, Pinn received multiple unsolicited and unauthorized
telemarketing calls from the same telephone number. The number had
been spoofed and belonged to a restaurant in Tennessee. She
answered the last of these calls. When she answered, the caller
initially indicated that he was calling from "Credit Associates"
and asked Pinn about her financial situation.

After Pinn waited on hold for about ten minutes, the caller
connected Pinn to "his advisor."  The advisor told Pinn that she
was from CCCF and indicated that Pinn's debts would be consolidated
through the Defendants' program, and provided Pinn with an email
address and telephone number linked to CCCF. She provided the
advisor with her email address, and after the call, CCCF sent an
email which promoted a 'Debt Management Plan Summary' under which
consumer loans would be consolidated under a 5.95% interest rate.

On April 13, 2022, Pinn emailed a complaint to CCCF. She alleges
that NBP forwarded her complaint to CCCF's telemarketing vendor,
non-party Digital Media Solutions, LLC ('DMS') and requested
evidence that Pinn had consented to these calls. DMS confirmed the
calls were made "via a live agent campaign" but "did not provide
evidence of Pinn's consent to those calls and denied that it made
or authorized those calls." Pinn alleges that she does not have
clear information about DMS' role in the calls she received.

Pinn alleges on information and belief that NBP provides certain
back-office and administrative services to CCCF, including
coordinating CCCF's responses to Pinn's post-call communications
and communication with DMS, and receives income derived from
Defendants' telemarketing activities and exerts control over CCCF's
telemarketers, ratifies their conduct, and/or participates in a
joint venture that generates income from the telemarketing alleged"
in the FAC. However, Pinn does not have clear information on
whether NBP's product or services were sole in CCCF's telemarketing
based on the available record.

Pinn alleges that she never provided her telephone number to the
Defendants or their agents for any purpose whatsoever, and the
Defendants and their agents did not obtain her prior express
consent to make telemarketing calls to her telephone number.
Further, she alleges that she did not have an established
relationship with Defendants; Defendants did not call to collect an
existing obligation; and Pinn did not ask the Defendants to call
her. In sum, she alleges that the Defendants never had valid
consent to call Pinn.

Pinn brings one claim against the Defendants on behalf of herself
and a class of individuals: violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5).

The Defendants now move to dismiss the FAC because it alleges that
the telephone calls at issue were made to promote CCCF's non-profit
"debt counseling services."

Pinn disputes that the TCPA's nonprofit exemption bars her claim,
arguing that the exemption does not categorically prohibit TCPA
claims against nonprofit companies where, as alleged in the FAC, a
nonprofit (CCCF) was acting as a "conduit" for the for-profit
Defendants to promote their business(es).

Judge Ryu holds that Pinn may ultimately be unable to prove the
connection between CCCF and for-profit businesses or that the call
was not made "with a commercial purpose." However, accepting the
allegations in the FAC as true and construing all reasonable
inferences in Pinn's favor, she concludes that the TCPA's nonprofit
exemption does not bar Pinn's claim at the pleading stage. For
these reasons, she denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/36rkxeuz from Leagle.com.


CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Guimon Suit Seeks to Recover Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly C. Guimon, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CrossCountry Mortgage LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00013 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 3, 2023) is
brought as a class action pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
and the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid wages for
overtime pay which was not compensated at the proper rate of pay
and a rate of pay to include all compensation.

Plaintiff Guimon was hired in a position titled "Senior Loan
Processer" for Defendant CCM in the summer of 2020. She brings the
state wage law claims on behalf of similarly situated current and
former employees of CCM who have been denied proper payment of the
overtime wages at the proper rate of pay.

CrossCountry Mortgage LLC is a full-service nationwide lender doing
business in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, IL 60177
          Telephone: (630) 464-9675
          Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
          E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com

D-PATRICK INC: Indiana Residents Set to Get Class Settlement Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
According to WFIE's Jill Lyman, NBC sister station, WTHR, reports
thousands of Indiana residents are now getting unexpected checks in
the mail.

The mailings say the payouts represent a settlement award for a
class action lawsuit alleging that dozens of Indiana auto
dealerships charged excessive document fees.

WTHR reports the checks are legit.

They say Irwin Levin, an attorney at Cohen & Malad, is listed as
the legal counsel of record representing the class of Indiana
consumers who sued the auto dealerships.

The lawsuits were filed in 2019. The settlement agreement came from
12 of the dealership groups last July.

They denied doing anything wrong, but collectively agreed to pay
about $13.5 million to settle the lawsuits.

WTHR reports 145,000 checks will be sent to Indiana consumers who
purchased a vehicle from those dealerships between April 4, 2017 to
March 31, 2022.

Here locally, those dealership groups include D-Patrick, Inc.

They also include Butler Motors Inc., Dorsett Auto Sales, Inc., Ed
Martin 236, Inc., Terry Lee Companies, Inc., Twin City Dodge, Inc.,
Andy Mohr Automotive Group, Inc., Bill Estes Chevrolet, Inc.,
Circle Buick GMC., Inc., Beck Automotive Group. Inc., Lockhart
Automotive Group., Inc., and Rohr Indy Motors., Inc. [GN]

DELTA AIRLINES: Court Clarifies June 22, 2022 Scheduling Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK HALEY and RANDAL
REEP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
DELTA AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01076-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the
Hon. Judge Sarah E. Geraghty entered an order granting the
Plaintiff Haley's motion for clarification on the scope of expert
discovery in the Scheduling Order.

In his motion, the Plaintiff Haley asks the Court to clarify the
scope of discovery as set out in its June 22, 2022 scheduling
order. The Court clarifies that discovery in this matter is
bifurcated. The schedule set forth in the Court's June 22, 2022
order pertains only to class certification discovery.

As such, the scope of the expert discovery in the scheduling order
is limited to class certification issues. The parties will be
permitted to engage in further discovery following the Court's
order on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The parties will have the opportunity to weigh in on the scope and
length of the second stage of discovery at a later date. Also
pending before the Court is Plaintiff Haley's fully briefed motion
to compel.

The Court intends to rule on Plaintiff Haley's motion in an
expeditious fashion but notes that class certification fact
discovery is set to expire on January 10, 2023. Should either party
wish to extend the discovery deadline, they may file a motion to
that effect.

Delta AirLines is one of the major airlines of the United States
and a legacy carrier.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XaSuDs at no extra charge.[CC]


DESIGNER BRANDS: Laguardia Suit Stayed Pending Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC LAGUARDIA, et al., v.
DESIGNER BRANDS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02311-SDM-EP (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order
that the motion to appoint trial attorneys is denied and the joint
motion to stay is granted.

   -- First, regarding the Motion to Appoint Trial Attorneys,
      this Court's Local Rules only contemplate one trial
      attorney. While the Court retains discretion to allow
      attorneys admitted pro hac vice to appear as a party's
      trial attorney, under the circumstances presented in this
      case the Court finds that good cause does not exist to
      permit Plaintiffs to have additional trial attorneys as
      requested in the Motion to Appoint Trial Attorneys.

   -- Next, the parties' request for a stay pending mediation is
      well taken. Accordingly, the Joint Motion to Stay, is
      granted and this case is stayed through April 20, 2023.

Considering the stay, the Court amends the briefing schedule
regarding Plaintiffs' and DSW's pending motion to class
certification pending motion for summary judgment as follows:

   -- DSW's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification shall be filed on or before MAY 1, 2023.

   -- The Plaintiffs' opposition to DSW's motion for summary
      judgment shall be filed on or before May 1, 2023.

   -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class
      certification shall be filed on or before May 11, 2023.

   -- DSW's reply in support of its motion for summary judgment
      shall be filed on or before MAY 11, 2023.

Designer Brands is an American company that sells designer and name
brand shoes and fashion accessories.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iobmQw at no extra charge.[CC]



ENOVIX CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 7
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on Jan. 9 disclosed that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
or acquired the common stock of Enovix Corporation ("Enovix" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ENVX) between February 22, 2021 and January 3,
2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), or Rodgers Silicon Valley
Acquisition Corp. ("RSVAC") common stock prior to July 15, 2021.
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California and alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 22, 2021, Enovix announced plans to become a publicly
traded company. Five months after this announcement, on July 15,
2021, Enovix became a publicly traded company. Rather than go
public through a traditional initial public offering ("IPO"),
Enovix merged with a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"),
a public shell corporation with no business of its own other than
to acquire a private company. On July 14, 2021, Enovix was
officially acquired by RSVAC, which then changed its name to Enovix
Corporation.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements throughout the Class Period, starting with
statements made at the time of the de-SPAC, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about Enovix's revenues and ability
to manufacture its proprietary battery technology. Plaintiff
alleges that Enovix would also have to create a process to
manufacture its batteries at a large enough scale to satisfy the
needs of its customers. Otherwise, it could not monetize its
proprietary technology.

Just months before the merger, Enovix had received key equipment to
establish its first manufacturing line at its "Fab-1" facility in
Fremont, California. Although Enovix had previously produced and
delivered sample batteries using its pilot production line, the
pilot line produced only 20 batteries per day. Building a
full-scale production facility was therefore a key step to
producing batteries at a commercial level.

In November 2021, Enovix announced that it had begun developing a
second automated production line at its Fab-1 facility. The second
line, the Company told investors, would be a "workhorse" focusing
on batteries for mobile electronics, such as laptops and
smartphones, thereby supporting Enovix's "ramp" to achieve
meaningful scale and revenue in the consumer electronics market
starting in 2023.

Enovix assured its investors in a March 2022 letter that moving
from the R&D to the production phase would "distinguish us from
other advanced battery companies that have claimed technology
breakthroughs but remain years away from commercialization. To that
end, Enovix also began to develop plans for a second production
facility, Fab-2. Defendants told investors that Fab-2 would take
lessons from Fab-1 and use different equipment, purportedly to
occupy a smaller footprint and save the Company from having to rent
a larger, more expensive space, while also delivering products more
efficiently. However, Fab-2's buildout was still years away.

On November 1, 2022, Enovix announced its financial results for
3Q22. Enovix revealed that in that quarter it realized only $8,000
in revenue. Enovix revealed that it would be "dialing back" its
work on improving the Gen1 lines in favor of shifting its focus to
its future Gen2 lines because the supposed improvements were not
having the desired results on output. Consequently, Enovix
"anticipate[d] achieving lower overall output from Fab-1 in 2023."
Enovix shares fell $8.34 over 40% on this news.

Then, on January 3, 2023, Defendant Rodgers held a special
presentation for investors via conference call. On the call,
Rodgers revealed that the Company's second production facility and
Gen2 lines would be delayed by several additional months because of
the equipment failures experienced in the Fab-1 lines. Enovix's
share price fell another 41% on this news.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 7, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased or acquired Enovix or RSVAC common stock, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
Enovix Corporation Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact
Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

Contact Information:

Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]

EPIC GAMES: Faces Class Action in Quebec Over Fortnite Video Game
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danica D'Sa, writing for The Mediaum, reports that Epic Games, the
creator of the popular video game Fortnite, is facing a class
action lawsuit in Canada. Plaintiffs are requesting for
compensation due to game dependence and behavioural issues caused
by Fortnite, as well as refunds of in-app purchases made by
children under 18. This comes after Epic Games faced a penalty of
US$520 million for privacy violations and for encouraging
unintended purchases in the US in December 2021 -- stipulated in a
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) news release.

"Epic put children and teens at risk through its lax privacy
practices, and cost consumers millions in illegal charges through
its use of dark patterns," stated the director of FTC's Bureau of
Consumer Protection, Samuel Levine. The use of design tricks in
Fortnite known as "dark patterns" and other unethical billing
practices led to hundreds of millions of dollars spent on
unintended purchases. In response, the company has made changes to
improve child safety, as reported by CBC. These changes include
increased parental controls, as well as the implementation of
"cabined" accounts, which restrict features of the game until a
parent's email address is provided.

In Canada, the class action lawsuit began with accusations of
Fortnite causing behavioural issues among children. Three parents
in Quebec claimed their children showed symptoms of dependence
after playing the game, displaying anger when restricted from
playing. They also observed behavioural changes in their children,
such as social withdrawal. This motion, filed by Calex Legal,
heavily mirrors the 2015 civil suit brought against the Quebec
tobacco industry, which claimed an intentional creation of an
addictive product without explicit warning to consumers.

While the Superior Court does not agree that the harm from playing
Fortnite was intentional, it states that Fortnite's designers
should have been aware of their game's addictive properties. The
class action also involves an examination of in-game purchases made
by players under 18. The court declared that minors can be eligible
for refunds of purchases.

In response to claims against Fortnite, lawyers representing Epic
Games argued that there is lacking evidence on Fortnite causing
video game dependence. Additionally, currently, Quebec does not
recognize video game dependence as a mental condition. The lawyers
also claimed that the American Psychiatric Association does not
classify gaming addiction as a mental disorder. In response, the
Supreme Court Judge, Justice Sylvain Lussier, contended that such
issues can be argued based on integrity, and that the World Health
Organization has declared gaming addiction as a disease. Likewise,
Justice Lussier stated that the lack of recognition of gaming
addiction in Quebec "does not make the claims in question
'frivolous' or 'unfounded'." The existing evidence, while not
officialized into a diagnosis, still poses a cause for concern.

The authorization of the class action lawsuit in Quebec started an
important legal battle, and with the popularity of Fortnite, the
resolution of this lawsuit carries implications for the video game
industry. Justice Lussier also noted, "The harmful effect of
tobacco was not recognized or admitted overnight," and this may
ring true for video games as well. [GN]

ESTES HOLDINGS: Prescott Sues Over Sushi Chefs' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
DON PRESCOTT, individually, and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. ESTES
HOLDINGS, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, RONALD CRAIG
ESTES, individually, and CHRISTY ESTES, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-02002 (W.D. Tenn., Jan. 3, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act in that they
failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours he worked by not compensating
him at the rate of time and one-half her regular rate of pay for
all the hours worked over forty 40 hours in one workweek.

Plaintiff Prescott was employed by Defendants as a full time hourly
paid sushi chef within the last three years, predominantly during
the first half of 2022. Plaintiff Prescott regularly worked more
than forty 40 hours in a workweek during his employment.

The Defendants own and operate Rock n Roll Sushi franchised
restaurants located in Memphis, Germantown and Jackson,
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com

FLORIDA: To Pay Up to $1-M to Law Firms to Defend Immigrant Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Soule, writing for Tallahassee Democrat, reports that
Florida has agreed to pay up to $1 million to two law firms to
defend it following Gov. Ron DeSantis' controversial decision last
summer to relocate nearly 50 Venezuelan migrants from Texas to
Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts.

So far, the state has paid nearly $112,000 to the firms Consovoy
McCarthy and Campbell Conroy & O'Neil to represent DeSantis and
other state officials in a class action lawsuit filed in Boston by
attorneys representing the migrants.

This is on top of the nearly $1.6 million paid to Destin,
Fla.-based aviation firm Vertol Systems Company, which the state
contracted for the migrant flights.

When combined, it represents a cost of around $35,000 for each
migrant relocated through the program.

The legal contracts were signed in late September, a couple of
weeks after the flights, and they cap the fees the firms can charge
at a half million dollars each. They have agreed to work for the
state for as long as three years.

Thomas C. Frongillo of Campbell Conroy & O'Neil, who is listed as
the state's lead attorney for the Boston case, is charging $650 an
hour. The hourly fee for partners at Consovoy McCarthy is also
$650. But the charges vary depending on the employee, going as low
as $150 per hour for junior paralegals at Campbell Conroy & O'Neil
and $200 for paralegals at Consovoy McCarthy.

Boths firms have Boston locations. Neither responded to media
requests.

U.S. News & World Report gives Campbell Conroy & O'Neil high
rankings for class action lawsuit defense. Consovoy McCarthy, a
conservative firm, has been involved in numerous high-profile
cases, including representing former President Trump in a
financial-records case and election law disputes.

Iván Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director of the Boston nonprofit
Lawyers for Civil Rights, which filed the lawsuit in Massachusetts'
federal court, accused Florida of using "scarce taxpayer dollars"
on "DeSantis' immigration theater."

"Florida's hard-working people are now on the hook for a million
dollars for out-of-state lawyers to defend DeSantis' fraudulent
scheme," he said in a statement. "If you can't be fair, you should
at least be frugal."

More spending to come
While opponents have called the transport a vicious political
stunt, DeSantis has said his migrant relocation program is the
"most effective" way to steer asylum seekers and other migrants
away from Florida. He contended that it's more effective to
intercept migrants at the Texas border than to track them down when
they arrive in Florida.

"If they get in a car with two other people, there's no way we're
going to be able to detect that," he said.

State lawmakers gave the Florida Department of Transportation $12
million for the migrant relocation program. The money comes from
interest earnings from Florida's $8.8 billion portion of the Biden
administration's American Rescue Plan. State spokespeople did not
respond to questions about whether that money is being used for the
legal costs.

But it is clear the state intends to spend all of it.

"I'll tell you this, the Legislature gave me $12 million,"
DeSantis said in September. "We're going to spend every penny of
that to make sure that we're protecting the people of the state of
Florida."

So expect more taxpayer dollars to be spent on the relocations –
especially as legal challenges mount.

On top of the Boston lawsuit, the Southern Poverty Law Center and
other immigration organizations sued DeSantis over the flights in
Miami federal court last month.  A Democratic Florida state senator
also filed suit. Sheriff Javier Salazar of Bexar County, Texas,
also opened an investigation into how the migrants were "lured" to
board flights from San Antonio to Martha's Vineyard.

In addition, the Treasury's Office of the Inspector General said it
is examining whether DeSantis improperly used COVID-19 aid to fund
the transport.

When asked about whether he agreed with the cost of the program
during a December press conference, House Speaker Paul Renner said
he supported the governor's efforts.

"I think the cost of illegal immigration far, far exceeds the [$12
million] we appropriated, and I'm prepared this year to appropriate
more," he said. [GN]

FORD MOTOR: Bid to Exclude Expert, Granted-in-Part, Denied-in-Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Lawyers Weekly Staff in Business Law of Michigan Lawyers
Weekly reports that court grants in part and denies in part
Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Defendant's Expert James Walker, Jr.
in case-captioned Weidman v. Ford Motor Co.; MiLW 02-106241.

Where the plaintiffs, in a product liability class action over a
purported defective brake master cylinder in vehicles manufactured
by the defendant, have moved to exclude the defendant's expert
evidence, that motion should be allowed in part and denied in part,
as the defendant's expert witness may offer opinions regarding
similarities and differences among the brake master cylinders in
the class vehicles, but cannot offer legal opinions as to whether
use of Rule 23's class mechanism is appropriate.

Presently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude
Defendant's Expert James Walker Jr., filed on June 23, 2021.
Defendant filed a Response on July 20, 2021. A reply was filed on
August 3, 2021. A hearing was held on December 7, 2022.

The instant product liability class action involves certain model
years 2013-2018 Ford F-150s (the 'Class Vehicles') that all contain
a purported defective brake master cylinder that can cause sudden
and unexpected loss of hydraulic brake fluid pressure, resulting in
diminished braking ability.

Ford's expert, James Walker, Jr., has provided his commonality
opinions concerning the Class Vehicles. Specifically, Mr. Walker
has opined that the Class Vehicles 'do not share a common component
design or manufacturing process' and the existence of the defect
'is not a class-wide question with entirely common evidence.'

Plaintiffs argue Mr. Walker's commonality opinions conflict with
the testimony of Ford's own engineers. Moreover, Plaintiffs assert
his opinion is based on an unreliable methodology because he
conducted no independent investigation or analysis but simply
parroted the data from Ford's documents. Plaintiffs further argue
Mr. Walker has offered mere speculation relative to an acceptable
rate of brake failure. Finally, Plaintiffs maintain Mr. Walker is
not qualified to draw a legal conclusion on whether the Brake
System Defect is a 'class-wide' question with common evidence under
Rule 23.

Even if there is some conflict between his opinions and the
testimony of Ford's engineers, that would go to the weight of the
evidence, and not its admissibility.
“As to Plaintiffs' complaint that Mr. Walker never inspected the
master cylinder in any of the Class Vehicles, this argument is
easily rejected based upon well settled authority.

There is no requirement that an expert must physically inspect or
test items on which they offer an opinion.

Further, Plaintiffs' argument that Mr. Walker's opinion is
unnecessary because the jury is capable of reading Ford's documents
is not well taken. Mr. Walker's engineering background allows him
to understand the master cylinder design and manufacturing changes
and their impact in ways that the average jury member may not
appreciate, meaning his opinions would assist the trier of fact.

“Plaintiffs also attack Mr. Walker's opinion that the 'question
of alleged defect in proposed F-150 class vehicles' master cylinder
is not a class-wide question with entirely common evidence' as an
improper 'legal conclusion.' This aspect of Plaintiffs' present
motion has merit. 'The principle that an expert may not make legal
conclusions is indeed well established.' . . . While Mr. Walker may
offer opinions regarding similarities and differences among the
brake master cylinders in Class Vehicles, he cannot offer legal
opinions as to whether use of Rule 23's class mechanism is
appropriate in this case.” [GN]

FORD MOTOR: Shifter Cable Bushing Recalls Prompt Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that several
Ford shifter cable bushing recalls have led to a class action
lawsuit that alleges nearly 3 million vehicles are at risk of
rolling away.

The Ford shifter cable bushing lawsuit was filed by New York
plaintiff Sergio Diaz and Illinois plaintiff Retha Connors.

The plaintiffs do not claim their vehicles had any problems with
the shifter cable bushings.

But both owners assert recall repairs offered by Ford will not fix
their vehicles.

According to the class action, Ford issued multiple shifter cable
bushing recalls because the bushings can degrade and detach,
allowing a vehicle to roll away. It's also possible a driver won't
know which gear the transmission is in by looking at the gear
shifter indicator.

"A degraded shifter cable bushing that detaches from the
transmission may allow the transmission to be in a gear state
different than the gear shift position selected by the driver." --
Ford

Additionally, the "condition could allow the driver to move the
shift lever to Park and remove the ignition key, while the
transmission may not be in Park, with no warning message or audible
chime."

The Ford class action lawsuit includes these vehicles which were
included in the shifter cable bushing recalls.

2013-2019 Ford Escape
2013-2016 Ford Fusion
2013-2018 Ford C-Max
2013-2021 Ford Transit Connect
2015-2018 Ford Edge

Ford was allegedly aware of the Hilex Hytrel 4556 bushing problems
long before telling the public about the defects.

Ford Shifter Cable Bushing Recalls
The first Ford shifter cable bushing recall was announced in July
2018 for more than 504,000 vehicles equipped with 6F35 six-speed
automatic transmissions. The shifter bushing recall included the
2013-2014 Ford Escape and 2013-2016 Ford Fusion.

According to Ford, the supplier applied a lubricant to the bushing
that attaches the shifter cable to the 6F35 transmission, but over
time the bushing could degrade.

Ford said improved replacement bushings would be installed.

Another Ford shifter cable bushing recall was announced in May 2019
for more than 259,182 model year 2013-2016 Ford Fusions equipped
with 2.5-liter engines. Replacement shifter bushings were allegedly
"of a different grade of material with heat stabilizer."

Ford dealers were also told to insert a protective cap over the
shift cable bushing to "protect against contaminants."

Then in March 2021, Ford issued a technical service bulletin (TSB
21-2033) to dealerships, informing them "[s]ome 2013-2016 Fusion,
2013-2018 C-MAX, 2013-2019 Escape, 2014-2021 Transit Connect, and
2015-2018 Edge vehicles may indicate an incorrect shifter lever
position."

"This may be due to the bushing at the transmission end of the
shifter lever cable resulting in a mismatch of cluster and selected
gear position. To correct the condition, follow the Service
Procedure steps to replace the bushing and install the protective
cap over the selector at the transmission end of the selector lever
cable." -- Ford

Ford told dealerships to replace the bushing and install a cap if
the shifter didn't move the transmission to the proper shifter
position, if there was a damaged or missing shifter bushing, or if
there was a mismatch of the cluster and selected gear position.

A few months later Ford issued another recall for more than 192,000
Transit Connnect vans. Ford dealerships were told to replace the
shifter bushings and install protective caps on the 2013-2021
vans.

Another Ford shifter cable bushing was announced in April 2022 for
more than 96,000 model year 2015 Escapes equipped with 2-liter
engines and 6F35 transmissions.

Ford said it was still trying to figure out why the bushings were
falling apart, but engineers believed heat and humidity were
potentially contributing to the problem.

"Remedy shift bushings are manufactured from a different grade
material with a heat stabilizer. Additionally, a cap will be
installed over the shift bushing for protection against
contaminants." -- Ford shifter bushing lawsuit

And finally, another Ford shifter cable bushing recall was issued
in June 2022 for more than 2.9 million of these vehicles:

2013-2019 Ford Escape
2013-2018 Ford C-Max
2013-2016 Ford Fusion
2013-2021 Ford Transit Connect
2015-2018 Ford Edge

Ford told the government that engineers still had not found a root
cause of the bushing problems, but "heat and humidity have the
potential to contribute to the hydrological breakdown of the
bushing material."

From April 29, 2015, through March 31, 2022, Ford knew of 1,630
warranty reports and 233 complaints related to the shifter cable
bushings. In addition, Ford said it was aware of at least six
property damage reports and four reports alleging injuries.

Each Ford bushing recall had the automaker asking owners to use the
parking brakes to prevent rollaways, but the class action lawsuit
contends Ford should provide loaner vehicles to customers because
the vehicles are unsafe to drive.

The plaintiffs also say Ford hasn't offered to reimburse vehicle
owners for rental vehicles while waiting for repairs that will fix
the vehicles.

The Ford shifter cable bushing class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Diaz,
et al., v. Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Miller Law Firm, and Fegan
Scott LLC. [GN]

FRANKE FOODSERVICE: Scott Sues Over Production Staff's Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEONTE SCOTT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRANKE FOODSERVICE SYSTEMS AMERICAS, INC.,
and RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00003 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 3, 2023) is brought by the
Plaintiff against Defendants as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation and
other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated
hourly-paid distribution employees.

Plaintiff Scott has been employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid
production employee during all times material to the collective
action. He alleges that Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to
pay him and those similarly situated for all hours worked over 40
per week within weekly pay periods at one and one-half times their
regular hourly rate of pay.

Franke Foodservice Systems Americas, Inc. is a manufacturer and
distributor of kitchen-related products for foodservice and
commercial retail chains, worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

GEMINI TRUST: Chablaney Sues Over $1.8B Loan Losses to Crypto Firms
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SANJAY CHABLANEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GEMINI TRUST COMPANY, LLC, TYLER WINKLEVOSS,
and CAMERON WINKLEVOSS, Case No. 650076/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Jan. 5,
2023) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the New
York General Business Law, and asserts common law claims for
fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.

Gemini purportedly lets customers buy, sell, trade, and securely
store more than 60 cryptocurrencies. One of the products Gemini
offers is the GIA, a yield-bearing account sold through the
Company's lending platform Gemini Earn which allows users to lend
out their crypto holdings in exchange for interest payments.

According to the Gemini website, the Earn platform is partnered
with various third-party crypto lenders who act as "accredited
borrowers" of Gemini customer assets. Gemini has stated that its
partners are "vetted through a risk management framework which
reviews our partners' collateralization management process."

Moreover, the Company stated that customers were able to "redeem
their assets at any time," and "in all cases our partners are
required to return your funds to you within five business days." In
early November 2022, the cryptocurrency exchange FTX experienced a
significant liquidity crisis after it was revealed that customer
assets had been misappropriated to cover the trading losses and
repay the outstanding debts of Alameda Research, a crypto-trading
firm founded by FTX's former Chief Executive Officer Sam
Bankman-Fried, the suit asserts.

On November 14, 2022, Gemini sent an email assuring its customers
that Gemini had no exposure to FTT tokens or Alameda and no
material exposure to FTX.

However, on November 16, 2022, Gemini announced that Genesis had
halted customer withdrawals upon realizing it would not be able to
return customer funds within the five-business day timeframe
advertised on the Gemini Earn website. Gemini subsequently paused
withdrawals on the Earn program. Market publications later revealed
that the ban on withdrawals came after Genesis suffered losses of
over $1.8 billion from loans it made to failed crypto firms
including Alameda.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, says the suit.

The Plaintiff is a New York resident who deposited funds into a GIA
and has since been unable to withdraw his deposited funds. The
class consists of all persons and entities other than the
Defendants that invested in Gemini Earn or otherwise purchased
Gemini Interest Accounts and were harmed.

Gemini is a privately-owned cryptocurrency exchange launched in
2014 by Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss and headquartered
in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

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

GHP MANAGEMENT: Settles Class Action Over Late Fees for $1.75MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that GHP Management agreed to pay $1.75
million to resolve claims that it charged unfair late fees to its
California tenants.

The settlement benefits tenants of GHP Management Corp. from Dec.
10, 2014, to May 16, 2022, who were signatories to a lease when one
or more late fees were paid due to untimely rent payments.

GHP properties in California are:

The Broadway Palace (North and South), Los Angeles
Canyon County Villas, Santa Clarita
Colony Townhomes, Santa Clarita
The DaVinci, Los Angeles
Diamond Park, Santa Clarita
The Lorenzo, Los Angeles
The Medici, Los Angeles
The Orsini (I, II, III), Los Angeles
Park Sierra, Santa Clarita
Pasadena Park Place, Los Angeles
Paseos Ontario, Ontario
The Paseos at Montclair North, Montclair
The Piero (I and II), Los Angeles
Riverpark, Santa Clarita
River Ranch Townhomes & Apartments, Santa Clarita
Sand Canyon Ranch, Santa Clarita
Sand Canyon Villas & Townhomes, Santa Clarita
The Skyline Terrace, Los Angeles
Summit at Warner Center, Woodland Hills
The Terrace, Santa Clarita
Upland Village Green, Upland
The Village, Santa Clarita
The Visconti, Los Angeles

According to the class action lawsuit, GHP Management violated
California law by collecting flat-rate late fees of $75 on rent
payments received three or more days late. Plaintiffs in the case
say these fees were unlawful because they did not reflect the
actual cost of late payment and instead constitute an unlawful
penalty.

GHP Management is a real estate management company that manages
rental properties around California.

GHP Management hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay
$1.75 million to resolve these class action allegations.

Under the terms of the GHP Management lawsuit settlement, class
members can collect an initial payment based on the number of late
fees they paid.

Those who paid one to three late fees will receive $50. Class
members who paid four to six late fees can receive $75. Those who
paid seven to nine late fees can receive a payment of $100. Class
members who paid 10 or more late fees can receive $125.

If funds remain in the settlement after initial payments, a second
round may be distributed. These payments will vary depending on the
amount left in residual funds, the number of fees paid by each
class member and other factors.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 14, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May
22, 2023.

No claim form is required to receive settlement benefits. Class
members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive
their settlement share as a check.

Class members who wish to receive their settlement in another form
must submit a payment method election form by Feb. 14, 2023.
Completing this form also makes class members eligible for a second
settlement share.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits tenants of GHP Management Corp. from Dec.
10, 2014, to May 16, 2022, who were signatories to a lease when one
or more late fees were paid due to untimely rent payments.

GHP properties in California are:

The Broadway Palace (North and South), Los Angeles
Canyon County Villas, Santa Clarita
Colony Townhomes, Santa Clarita
The DaVinci, Los Angeles
Diamond Park, Santa Clarita
The Lorenzo, Los Angeles
The Medici, Los Angeles
The Orsini (I, II, III), Los Angeles
Park Sierra, Santa Clarita
Pasadena Park Place, Los Angeles
Paseos Ontario, Ontario
The Paseos at Montclair North, Montclair
The Piero (I and II), Los Angeles
Riverpark, Santa Clarita
River Ranch Townhomes & Apartments, Santa Clarita
Sand Canyon Ranch, Santa Clarita
Sand Canyon Villas & Townhomes, Santa Clarita
The Skyline Terrace, Los Angeles
Summit at Warner Center, Woodland Hills
The Terrace, Santa Clarita
Upland Village Green, Upland
The Village, Santa Clarita
The Visconti, Los Angeles
Potential Award
Up to $125.

Proof of Purchase
N/A

Payment Method Election Form

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
02/14/2023

Case Name
Seltzer, et al. v. Geoffrey H. Palmer, et al., Case No.
20STCV22701, in the California Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles

Final Hearing
05/22/2023

Settlement Website
ghplatefeesettlement.com

Claims Administrator
GHP Late Fee Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Info@GHPLateFeeSettlement.com
855-503-3331

Class Counsel
Theodore Maya
Robert R Ahdoot
Tina Wolfson
AHDOOT & WOLFSON PC

Calen Marker
ZIMMERMAN REED

Defense Counsel
Robert M Waxman
Jason L Haas
ERVIN COHEN & JESSUP LLP

Jacqueline Antonio
GHP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION INC. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to Seal Identified Portions of Joint Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASOM BROWN, et al.,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-03664-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
the Defendant asks the Court to seal the identified portions of the
Joint Submission Re: Preservation in Light of Class Certification
Order.

The Joint Submission contains non-public, highly sensitive and
confidential business information that could affect Google's
competitive standing and may expose Google to increased security
risks if publicly disclosed, including details related to Google's
internal systems and processes, data fields, and metrics, which
Google maintains as confidential in the ordinary course of its
business and is not generally known to the public or Google's
competitors.

Courts have repeatedly found it appropriate to seal documents that
contain "business information that might harm a litigant's
competitive standing." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.. Good cause
to seal is shown when a party seeks to seal materials that "contain
confidential information about the operation of [the party's]
products and that public disclosure could harm [the party] by
disclosing confidential technical information."

The Joint Submission comprises confidential and proprietary
information regarding highly sensitive features of Google's
internal systems and operations that Google does not share
publicly. Specifically, the information provides details related to
Google's internal data storage, metrics, and fields. Such
information reveals Google's internal strategies, system designs,
and business practices for operating and maintaining many of its
important services while complying with its legal and privacy
obligations.

Moreover, if publicly disclosed, malicious actors may use such
information to seek to compromise Google's infrastructure. Google
would be placed at an increased risk of cyber security threats.

The information Google seeks to redact, including details related
Google's internal projects, internal databases, and their
proprietary functionalities, is the minimal amount of information
needed to protect its internal systems and operations from being
exposed to not only its competitors but also to nefarious actors
who may improperly seek access to and disrupt these systems and
operations. The "good cause" rather than the "compelling reasons"
standard should apply but under either standard, Google's sealing
request is warranted.

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

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WSmGmV at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq.
          Stephen A. Broome, Esq.
          Viola Trebicka, Esq.
          Crystal Nix-Hines, Esq.
          Diane M. Doolittle, Esq.
          Josef Ansorge, Esq.
          Jomaire A. Crawford, Esq.
          Jonathan Tse, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
          SULLIVAN, LLP
          191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 705-7400
          Facsimile: (312) 705-740
          E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com
                  stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com
                  violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com
                  crystalnixhines@quinnemanuel.com
                  dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com
                  josefansorge@quinnemanuel.com
                  jomairecrawford@quinnemanuel.com
                  jonathantse@quinnemanuel.com

HASBRO INC: Class Suit Mulled Over Dungeons and Dragons Game Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Whitmore, writing for We Got this Covered, reports that with
all the craziness happening in the world of Dungeons and Dragons
right now, we only have one thing to say to the folks at Hasbro and
Wizards of the Coast; "Well, well, well -- how the turntables . .
."

The Office references aside, if you didn't know, allow us to
provide a brief update. A new gaming license from D&D parent
company Wizards of the Coast (and subsequent owner Hasbro), has
generated a slew of restrictions regarding original content, and
the ability-adjacent creators have to turn a profit on the
property.

In the past, Wizards of the Coast, Hasbro, and the people that
enjoy their games have all played relatively nice (pun intended.)
Now, though, it seems there has been a massive overreach in what
was once standard procedure: Where third party creators used to
generate wholly original content that stood to make a profit, now
their material can be demonetized and flagged due to anti-trust
violations. Boo! What the hell, Hasbro? To go after your fandom
like that doesn't seem very fair.

Although the motivations behind why a 20-year standard was suddenly
overturned remain unclear, what has become incredibly transparent
is the overwhelming fan backlash surrounding the decision.

In an online petition, a class action lawsuit looks to be levied
against both Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast in an effort to
maintain creator rights. Who's to say if a legal move like this has
the ability to take down two of the largest names in the gaming
industry, but if anyone can do it -- it's D&D fans. After all,
these people fight dragons in their free time, they can handle a
few fire-breathing bigwigs. [GN]

HAVANA CENTRAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Montoya Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SENON MARTINEZ MONTOYA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAVANA CENTRAL NY 2, LLC; THE
MERRIN GROUP, LLC; JEREMY MERRIN; SAMUEL MERRIN; SETH MERRIN; and
ESTHER BRONSTEIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00111 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 6, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Montoya was employed by the Defendants as prep cook.

HAVANA CENTRAL NY 2, LLC owns and operates a restaurant known as
"Havana Central". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 792-0048
          Email: Jason@levinepstein.com

HEY FAVOR: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Privacy Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak of ClassAction.Org reports that a 44-page lawsuit, filed
in California federal court on January 5, 2023, Hey Favor, Inc.
uses various tracking tools on its website and app that can
essentially record every action a user takes and share that data
with third parties for marketing, advertising and analytics.

Privacy can be a significant concern when it comes to sexual
health, so users of telemedicine platform Hey Favor (formerly the
Pill Club) may be alarmed to learn that the company has been hit
with a proposed class action accusing it of secretly sharing users'
private health information with the likes of Meta, TikTok and a
data analytics firm called FullStory.

While any potential privacy violation is concerning, Favor's
alleged conduct is "all the more egregious," the lawsuit says,
given the nature of its business -- i.e., providing prescriptions
for birth control, emergency contraception, STD testing and skin
care products and selling menstrual care and sexual wellness
products like condoms, lubrication and pregnancy tests.

To utilize Favor's platform, users are required to provide a vast
amount of sensitive personal and health information -- such as
prescription information, answers to highly personal health
questions, medication side effects, allergies, age and weight --
and this data is then tracked, intercepted and disclosed to third
parties, the lawsuit claims.

In FullStory's case, Favor allows the company to intercept every
interaction users have with its website, including clicks,
keystrokes, mouse movements and information entered in response to
medical questions, the suit alleges.

According to the lawsuit, this may come as a surprise to Favor's
users given the telemedicine platform consistently represents that
the information it collects "is treated as Protected Health
Information (PHI)" and never shared with third parties. In fact,
the case says, Favor states in bold and capital letters, "WE DO NOT
SELL OR MARKET YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION AT ANY TIME."

The lawsuit alleges that consumers have "no way of knowing" Favor
discloses their personal and health information to social media
companies and data analytics firms given the software used to
collect the data "is inconspicuously incorporated in the
background" of its website and app.

The plaintiff, an Arkansas resident who filed the lawsuit under a
pseudonym, claims that she and other Favor users expected that
their personal and health information would remain confidential and
not be disclosed or intercepted without their consent. The case
argues that Favor's unauthorized disclosure of consumers' private
information is "an extreme invasion of [their] privacy."

Favor discloses or allows third parties to intercept a wide range
of personal and health information about its users, including the
information they enter when opening an account, using Favor's
healthcare services or looking up information on its blog.

For instance, the suit says, a Favor user seeking to obtain a birth
control prescription must first answer "an extensive medical
history questionnaire" comprised of a series of highly sensitive
health-related questions, such as "what type of birth control are
you on?"; "are you pregnant?"; "how long has it been since you last
gave birth?"; "how frequently would you like your period?"; "are
you taking hormones?"; and other questions related to
breastfeeding, menopause, breast cancer, high cholesterol,
medications, blood pressure, heart disease, hypertension and more.

Per the case, patients also use Favor's website and app to contact
members of its patient care team, who can answer questions about
their prescriptions, medication side effects or treatment plans.

Favor also sells over-the-counter sexual and reproductive
healthcare products and skincare products and offers a blog where
users can look up related information about sexual wellness,
reproductive health and medications, the lawsuit relays.

According to the suit, the tracking tools on Favor's website and
app can be used to collect and disclose the information
specifically entered by users, such as the answers to their
health-related questions, and the actions they take on the
platform, such as buying a pregnancy test kit or viewing a blog
titled "Bleeding After Plan B: Causes & Side Effects."

The lawsuit alleges that various tracking tools are used on Favor's
website and app to amass user information.

One such tool, the suit says, is called the pixel -- a piece of
code provided by social media companies such as TikTok and Meta
that is used by advertisers (such as Favor, in this case) to
collect data about how people use their websites to optimize their
advertising campaigns.

TikTok and Meta, for their part, can also use the information
collected through the pixel in connection with their advertising
services -- which is their main source of revenue, the case
relays.

Per the suit, the TikTok and Meta pixels are both active on Favor's
website and can be used to track what pages users view, what
buttons they click and the information they enter, as well as a
unique identifier to connect their actions with their social media
profiles.

Meta also offers a mobile version of its pixel called a software
development kit (SDK), the complaint relays. Per the suit, app
developers can use the Meta SDK to track when users download their
app, make in-app purchases or take other specified actions.

Data analytics firm FullStory offers what's called session replay
software, which essentially records "every action that takes place
on [the] site or app," the suit says.

According to the complaint, Favor has allowed FullStory's session
replay software to "intercept all of the users' interactions on the
Favor Platform -- i.e., every click, tap, scroll, mouse movement
and keystroke -- including the highly sensitive medical information
users entered into the Favor Platform when seeking treatment."

The lawsuit notes that Favor's co-defendants -- Meta, TikTok and
parent company ByteDance, and FullStory -- have themselves come
under scrutiny for the way they allegedly collect and handle data
and have been the subject of numerous other privacy-related
lawsuits and investigations.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the U.S. who used the
Favor website or app and whose communications or data were shared
with third parties, including Meta, TikTok and FullStory. [GN]

INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Faces Privacy Class Action in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
William M. Bosch, Esq., of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP,
disclosed that following claims that Intercontinental Hotels Group
(IHG) allowed hackers to access the company's network resulting in
disrupted functions and the exposure of personal information, IHG
is now facing a proposed class action in a Georgia federal court by
franchisees.

Listed as a "Hospitality Case to Watch in 2023" by Law360, the case
"involves a ransomware attack where the plaintiffs are seeking
certification of a class that isn't a consumer class," according to
Pillsbury Commercial Litigation partner Bill Bosch. "Instead of
consumers alleging harm because their data was not protected, here
the class would be comprised of franchisees, owners and operators
of IHG-flagged hotels alleging harm because they were denied access
to IHG's systems."

While the question of whether IHG is responsible for the ensuing
losses is still up in the air, Bosch stated, "It will be
interesting to see if and how a class is certified by the court and
how the court analyzes IHG's duty of care to prevent a denial of
service ransomware attack."

Bosch also commented on cases relating to a possible "second wave"
of COVID-19 insurance cases. After a lower court judge ruled in
favor of Schleicher and Stebbins Hotels LLC and its affiliates, a
group of insurers appealed the ruling which was later taken up by
the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Noting that the lower court judge held that damage caused by the
presence of the coronavirus was a "direct physical loss or damage,"
Bosch stated, "unlike the first wave of COVID-19 insurance
litigation largely brought by small businesses that were closed due
to government shutdown orders and had virus exclusions in their
policies, this lawsuit is part of a second wave of cases in which
insureds with broader coverage are developing scientific and
epidemiological evidence that the COVID-19 virus can cause physical
damage within the insured's property." [GN]

JARED HALL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hendrickson Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN P. HENDRICKSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JARED HALL and RYAN
SETTY-O’CONNOR, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02930-S (N.D. Tex.,
December 30, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against
the Defendants for their alleged illegal pattern or practice that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated employees
have worked for one or both the Defendants at any time within the
three years prior to the filing of this complaint. The Plaintiff
also claims that they were paid by the Defendants on an hourly
basis. However, despite working more than 40 hours per week, the
Defendants did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, the Defendants paid
them straight time regardless of the numbers of hours worked.
Allegedly, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
were misclassified by the Defendants as exempt from overtime
provisions.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover all unpaid
overtime compensation, for himself and all other similarly situated
employees, as well as liquidated damages equal in amount to the
unpaid compensation found due to them, pre- and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, and other relief as may be
necessary and/or appropriate.

Jared Hall and Ryan Setty-O’Connor are co-owners of MerLux Pools,
LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Travis Gasper, Esq.
          GASPER LAW, PLLC
          1408 N. Riverfront Blvd., Suite 323
          Dallas, TX 75207
          Tel: (972) 504-1420
          Fax: (833) 957-2957
          E-mail: travis@travisgasper.com

KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Nelson Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICTASHA L. NELSON, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. KEHE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-01449 (M.D. Fla., December 31, 2022) brings this complaint
as a collective action against the Defendant to recover monetary
damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted,
full-time warehouse employee and office clerk from approximately
April4, 2022 to December 26, 2022.

The Plaintiff asserts that he worked a total minimum average of 80
hours weekly while she was employed by the Defendant. However,
despite working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not
pay her overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek. Instead, the Plaintiff always received the same straight
time pay regardless of the number of hours worked. In addition, the
Defendant paid him on a bi-weekly basis by direct deposits.
Moreover, although the Defendant could track the hours worked by
the Plaintiff in the warehouse and at home, the Defendant provided
him paystubs that did not reflect the total number of hours she has
worked, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff seeks actual damages in the amount shown to be due
for unpaid overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
weekly, as well as an equal amount in double/liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs, and other relief
as the Court deems equitable and just and/or available pursuant to
the FLSA.

Kehe Distributors, Inc. operates a food distribution center. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Tel: (305) 446-1500
          Fax: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

KIDS FOR THE FUTURE: Court Dismisses Wallace Suit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBBIE WALLACE, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. KIDS FOR THE FUTURE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-CV-00105-BSM (E.D. Ark.), Judge Brian S.
Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, Delta Division:

   a. grants Kids for the Future's motion for summary judgment on
      the issue of Robbie Wallace's pay method;

   b. dismisses Wallace's complaint with prejudice;

   c. denies as moot Wallace's motion for conditional
      certification; and

   d. denies Wallace's motion for leave to file an amended
      complaint.

Wallace worked as a Qualified Behavioral Health Provider (QBHP) for
Kids for the Future for over two years. As a QBHP, Wallace provided
behavioral health services to children and adolescents. Her duties
included meeting with patients in their homes or schools, patient
charting, driving between patient appointments, attending staff
meetings and training, and responding to text messages and phone
calls from patients or their parents. Wallace was responsible for
recording her time through a software application and time sheets
provided by Kids for the Future.

Kids for the Future did not pay Wallace an hourly rate for all of
the time she worked, but rather paid her fixed rates for services
she provided that could be billed to a patient's insurance. The pay
Wallace received for a given service was often calculated in
billable fifteen minute increments. These billable increments were
subject to rounding and did not always correspond to the exact
amount of time Wallace spent providing the service. In addition to
paying Wallace for billable services, Kids for the Future paid
Wallace a separate rate for training time.

Wallace occasionally recorded billable and non-billable time that
combined to exceed forty hours in a given week. For these weeks,
Kids for the Future paid Wallace an additional overtime premium.
Its calculation of Wallace's additional overtime premium involved
two steps.

First, Kids for the Future determined Wallace's regular rate of pay
for the week by dividing her total compensation (which consisted
primarily of her billable services and training pay) by her total
hours of work recorded. Second, it multiplied one half of Wallace's
regular rate of pay by the number of hours she recorded over forty
hours to determine her additional overtime premium for that week.

When Wallace did not record working more than 40 hours in a given
week, she was only paid for the billable services she provided and
her training time, regardless of how many non-billable hours she
also recorded. In both overtime and non-overtime weeks, Wallace's
pay always exceeded the minimum wage when factoring her total
compensation received and the number of hours she recorded
working.

Wallace has now filed a class action lawsuit against Kids for the
Future under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act for unpaid wages and overtime compensation. She alleges
that Kids for the Future failed to pay her for all hours worked,
failed to properly calculate her overtime pay, and failed to
reimburse her for mileage and travel expenses. Wallace asserts that
Kids for the Future hired her as an hourly-paid employee. Kids for
the Future moves for summary judgment on Wallace's claims before a
collective has been conditionally certified.

Kids for the Future argues that summary judgment should be granted
on Wallace's claims because it hired Wallace as a piecework
employee.

Judge Miller finds that while all reasonable inferences must be
drawn in Wallace's favor, all of the reliable evidence supports
Kids for the Future's contention that Wallace was paid on a piece
rate basis and was not an hourly-paid employee. Wallace cannot
overcome summary judgment by simply alleging she was an hourly-paid
employee when the record evidence overwhelming demonstrates that
she was not. Moreover, her own declaration undermines her claim
that she was an hourly-paid employee.

Judge Miller holds that no reasonable juror would find that Wallace
was an hourly-paid employee. Summary judgment is therefore granted
on her claims for unpaid wages and overtime because, as alleged,
those claims depend on her being hourly-paid. While Wallace now
argues that even as a piecework employee she did not agree to Kids
for the Future's method of calculating her overtime pay, she cannot
raise new claims in response to a motion for summary judgment.

Wallace's complaint also alleges that Kids for the Future committed
an additional overtime violation by not reimbursing her for mileage
and travel expenses. Kids for the Future argues that Wallace has
not sufficiently pled this claim, and that it should be dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

To the extent this claim can be disentangled from Wallace's other
claims that are premised on her being an hourly-paid employee, it
is dismissed because Wallace has not pled that a deduction resulted
in her receiving less than the minimum wage for any week, or that
Kids for the Future was otherwise required to reimburse her for
mileage and travel expenses pursuant to the parties' agreement or
applicable law.

Judge Miller denies Wallace's motion for conditional certification
as moot. He says denial is appropriate because Wallace's status as
a piecework employee is fatal to her individual claims and she
cannot show that potential opt-ins are similarly situated when her
complaint contains such a crucial misstatement of fact.

Finally, after Kids for the Future filed its motion for summary
judgment, Wallace filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint.
Her proposed amendment would add a claim alleging that Kids for the
Future failed to include the value of her nondiscretionary bonuses
when calculating her regular rate of pay for overtime purposes.

Other than adding this new claim, Judge Miller finds that the
proposed amended complaint appears identical to the original
complaint, including Wallace's allegation that she was an
hourly-paid employee. While this new claim is not necessarily
contingent on Wallace being an hourly employee, her motion for
leave to amend is denied because the proposed amended complaint is
a collective action and Wallace cannot show that potential opt-ins
are similarly situated. This is true because the amended complaint
would continue to allege that Wallace was an hourly-paid employee
and assert other claims premised on this misstatement of fact.

In sum, Kids for the Future's motion for summary judgment is
granted on the issue of Wallace's pay method. Wallace's complaint
is dismissed with prejudice because her claims depend on her
mistaken allegation that she was paid on an hourly basis. Wallace's
motion for conditional certification is denied as moot, and her
motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied because
amendment would be futile as a collective action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2tcfy93w from Leagle.com.


KRAFT HEINZ: Tatum Suit Moved From N.D. California to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PEGGY TATUM, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY and KRAFT
HEINZ FOODS COMPANY (LLC), Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-7180-TLT
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Trina L. Thompson of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California transfers the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On Nov. 29, 2021, Tatum and two other Plaintiffs filed a putative
class action against the Defendants in the Northern District of
Illinois, Boss v. Kraft Heinz Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-6360. The Boss
action challenges the labeling of Kraft Heinz's MiO liquid water
enhancers based upon its alleged failure to disclose the presence
of allegedly artificial malic acid in those products and its use of
the phrase "Natural Flavor with Other Natural Flavor" to describe
those products.

On Nov. 15, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action
against the Defendants, in which she alleges that Kraft Heinz fails
to disclose the presence of allegedly artificial malic acid in its
Crystal Light water enhancer products and mislabels those products
using the phrase "Natural Flavor with Other Natural Flavor."

The parties have agreed to transfer the action to the Northern
District of Illinois, where all the Defendants are co-headquartered
and where venue is accordingly proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1391(b)(1). They agree that transfer to the Northern District of
Illinois would further the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and be in the interest of justice because it would facilitate the
consolidation of the action with the Boss action, which asserts
similar claims premised on the labeling of water enhancer products
that allegedly contain artificial malic acid.

Therefore, subject to the Court's approval, that the action will be
transferred from the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Having considered the parties' stipulation, Judge Thompson finds,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404, that: (a) the action could have
been brought in the Northern District of Illinois and; (b) transfer
would further the interest of justice and would be more convenient
for the parties and witnesses. She accordingly approved the
parties' stipulation and orders the Clerk of the Court to transfer
the action to the Northern District of Illinois.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5yfz3n93 from Leagle.com.

JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Dean N. Panos -- dpanos@jenner.com -- (pro hac
vice) Chicago, IL.

JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Alexander M. Smith -- asmith@jenner.com -- Los
Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendants The Kraft Heinz Company and
Kraft Heinz Foods Company (LLC).


LASTPASS US: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tech Desk of Indian Express reports that LastPass password manager
faces class-action lawsuit over recent breach.

Filed this week anonymously in the US district court in
Massachusetts, the lawsuit demands that LastPass pay up in consumer
damages.

LastPass, which has over 33 million registered users, is now facing
a class action lawsuit for failing to prevent a major breach last
year. While the password manager app seemed to initially downplay
the extent of the breach, LastPass in December last year revealed
that the breach potentially exposed the data of 25 million users.

Filed this week anonymously in the US district court in
Massachusetts, the lawsuit alleges that the time between the
incident and this disclosure gave bad actors the chance to use the
stolen data to their full advantage. It also demands the company
pay in damages, although the figure sought is not known at the
moment.

"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," reads the lawsuit
where the plaintiff is only named as "John Doe."

The company in its most recent report about the incident had
suggested that the hackers can't access the stolen password vaults
since they'd need the master keys for that. But the lawsuit points
out that the hackers were still able to copy sensitive information
like names, end-user names, billing addresses, email addresses,
telephone numbers, IP addresses, which could be used to scam
concerned users.

"Not only has this statement not been verified through discovery,
but it is also a shameless attempt by LastPass to shift the blame
of the Data Breach's resulting negative impact on Plaintiff and
Class members," the lawsuit argues.

The part about LastPass shifting the blame is in reference to the
password manager saying in its statement that "it would be
extremely difficult to attempt to brute force guess master
passwords for those customers who follow our password best
practices."

Aside from paying up in consumer damages, the class-action lawsuit
is also demanding that the court force LastPass implement better
security measures. [GN]

LILY'S SWEETS: Kell Sues Over Mislabeled Chocolate Bar Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANNALISA KELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LILY'S SWEETS, LLC & THE HERSHEY COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00147 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2023) seeks to
remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the
Defendants with respect to the marketing and sale of Lily's Extra
Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa chocolate bars (hereinafter, the
"Products").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to disclose that the Products contain lead, which is an extremely
dangerous and harmful chemical when consumed, especially by
pregnant women and children.

The Plaintiff purchased the Products in reliance on the Defendants'
representation that the Products contained only the dark chocolate
ingredients set forth on the label and packaging and were safe for
consumption. Plaintiff believes that products that advertise as
dark chocolate do not contain lead. If the Products did not contain
lead, Plaintiff would purchase the Products in the immediate to
near future, says the suit.

LILY'S SWEETS, LLC provides confectionery products. The Company
offers dark and milk chocolate style bars, baking chips, peanut
butter cups, and other confectionery products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5500
          Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

LOUISIANA: District Court Stays Discovery in Alex v. Edwards
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEX A., by and through his guardian, Molly Smith;
BRIAN B.; and CHARLES C., by and through his guardian, Kenione
Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. GOVERNOR JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as Governor
of Louisiana; WILLIAM SOMMERS, in his official capacity as Deputy
Secretary of the Office of Juvenile Justice, JAMES M. LEBLANC, in
his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety & Corrections, Civil Action No. 22-573-SDD-RLB (M.D.
La.), Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana grants the Defendants'
Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution for Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Standing.

The lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of certain
individuals under the secure care of the Office of Juvenile Justice
to obtain injunctive relief preventing their transfer from the
Bridge City Center for Youth ("BCCY") to a location at the
Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola known as the Bridge City
Center for Youth at West Feliciana ("BCCY-WF"). The district judge
denied the Plaintiffs' emergency motion for TRO.

Pursuant to a protective order, the parties conducted preliminary
discovery, including limited depositions, written discovery, and
expert discovery in preparation for a preliminary injunction
hearing. They also agreed to allow Plaintiffs' expert to conduct a
site inspection of the BCCY-WF prior to the hearing.

On Sept. 23, 2022, the district judge denied the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Preliminary Injunction, and referred the matter to the
undersigned for the issuance of a Scheduling Order. The Court
issued a Scheduling Order on Oct. 27, 2022.

On Oct. 31, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification. While the Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
individuals who are subject to transfer and who have been
transferred to BCCY-WF, the named Plaintiffs have not been
transferred to BCCY-WF. The Motion for Class Certification remains
pending before the district judge.

On Nov. 21, 2022, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Standing. In support of this motion, they argue that the
Plaintiffs lack standing to mount an as-applied challenge to the
conditions of the BCCY-WF facility because they are not currently
and have never been subject to those conditions and are not
currently and have never been subject to any harm or injury from
the conditions at the BCCY-WF facility.

In opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, and in support of a finding
of standing, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants misconstrue
the claims contained in the Amended Complaint by reframing the
claims as a challenge only to the conditions of confinement for
youth currently held at the BCCY-WF, even though the Amended
Complaint continues to include youth who are at risk of imminent
harm and youth who are currently confined at BCCY-WF. This Motion
to Dismiss remains pending before the district judge.

In support of their Motion to Stay Discovery, the Defendants
similarly argue that because the Plaintiffs are not currently, and
have never been, housed at the facility on which discovery is
sought, the Plaintiffs will suffer no prejudice in a temporary stay
of discovery. They argue that they have established good cause that
they would incur unnecessary "undue burden and expense" if required
to participate in discovery prior to the ruling on its Motion to
Dismiss, noting that Plaintiffs would not be subject to prejudice
because they are not now nor have they ever been subject to
confinement at BCCY-WF.

The Plaintiffs counter that this argument is based on the
Defendant's flawed contention that the named Plaintiffs in this
action lack standing to sue because they are not housed in BCCY-WF,
although they remain subject to transfer to BCCY-WF. They argue
that the Motion to Stay Discovery should be denied because the
Defendants have not demonstrated good cause, the Defendants are
attempting to delay these proceedings, and Plaintiffs have been and
would continue to be unduly burdened by a delay in discovery.

Having reviewed the record, and having considered the arguments of
the parties, Judge Bourgeois finds good cause to continue its stay
of discovery pending resolution of the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. He says the Plaintiffs have already obtained preliminary
discovery. They did not, however, obtain their sought preliminary
injunction precluding their transfer to BCCY-WF. Furthermore, there
is no representation in opposition of the instant motion
identifying any of the named plaintiffs as currently being held at
BCCY-WF. It is therefore unclear how a stay of discovery pending
resolution of the threshold issue of standing will prejudice the
named Plaintiffs.

Judge Bourgeois understands that the named Plaintiffs believe they
have standing to proceed with the lawsuit (even on behalf of
individuals already housed at BCCY-WF who challenge conditions of
the facility) because they are potentially subject transfer to
BCCY-WF. Nevertheless, the district judge has not yet determined
whether the named Plaintiffs have standing to proceed on behalf of
individuals who are currently held at BCCY-WF. Allowing discovery
to proceed prior to a determination of standing would subject the
Defendants to undue burden or expense.

Having reviewed the record, and considering that the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss raises the threshold issue of subject-matter
jurisdiction, Judge Bourgeois finds good cause to stay discovery
pending resolution of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Based on the foregoing, the Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery
Pending Resolution for Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing is
granted. Discovery is stayed pending resolution of the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing. The parties should
immediately contact Judge Bourgeois upon resolution of the motion
so that the Court may issue a new Scheduling Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/32nder5f from Leagle.com.


LOYALTY BRAND: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hernandez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAIROBY HERNANDEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOYALTY BRAND MARKETING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 150218/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Jan. 8, 2023) alleges
that the Defendant's Website, Popfitclothing.com, contained access
barriers that prevented the Plaintiff and other visually impaired
and legally blind individuals from purchasing products.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, Popfitclothing.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

LOYALTY BRAND MARKETING, LLC operates an online clothing store.
[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
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

MAVIS DISCOUNT: Underpays Tire Specialists, Washington Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN WASHINGTON, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiff,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. MAVIS DISCOUNT TIRE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10999 (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2022) is a class and
collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a tire specialist
from in or about December 2021 until the end of his employment in
May 2022.

Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, he was
regularly required by the Defendant to work more than 40 hours per
week. However, the Defendant did not compensate him for all hours
he worked. Despite working more than 40 hours per week, the
Defendant failed to pay him overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek. Moreover, the Defendant never
compensated hi spread-of-hours premiums for working in excess of
ten hours days a week. Accordingly, the Defendant also failed to
provide him with proper wage statements and notices, says the
suit.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated tire
specialists, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court
grant him relief that include an injunction against the Defendant
and their employees, an award of unpaid wages, statutory premiums
for spread of hours, statutory penalties, liquidated and/or
punitive damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and
attorney's fees due to the Defendant's discriminatory conduct, pre-
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and statutory
penalties, and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.

Mavis Dsicount Tire, Inc. operates more than 430 service centers
across seven states offering repair and maintenance services
including brakes, alignments, suspension, shocks, and exhaust.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Tel: (212) 465-1188

MIELE INC: Final Judgment Entered in Alcazar Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN ALCAZAR, et al., Plaintiff v. MIELE,
INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02890-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Vince Chharbia of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California enters judgment in accordance with the Court's
previous orders granting Final Approval of the Class Action
Settlement and the Motion for Attorney's Fees.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/37d7e2xx from Leagle.com.


MINNESOTA: Dismissal of Some Claims in White v. Dayton Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, Ryan J. White, Plaintiff v. Governor Mark Dayton, et
al., Defendants. Gary P. Scott, Plaintiff v. Governor Mark Dayton,
et al., Defendants. Darin D. Davidson, Plaintiff v. Mark Dayton,
Governor, et al., Defendants. James D. Fries, Plaintiff v. Governor
Mark Dayton, et al., Defendants. Joseph Allen Hajek, Plaintiff v.
Governor Mark Dayton, et al., Defendants. Lloyd Hartleib, Plaintiff
v. Governor Mark Dayton, et al., Defendants. Karl Godfrey Stevens,
Plaintiff v. Governor Mark Dayton, et al., Defendants. Dale Allen
Williams, Sr., Plaintiff v. Mark Dayton, Governor, et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 11-cv-3702 (NEB/DJF), 11-cv-3714 (NEB/DJF),
11-cv-3733 (NEB/DJF), 12-cv-0062 (NEB/DJF), 12-cv-0343 (NEB/DJF),
12-cv-0344 (NEB/DJF), 12-cv-0495 (NEB/DJF), 12-cv-0881 (NEB/DJF)
(D. Minn.), Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota:

   a. recommends that the non-viable claims be dismissed pursuant
      to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B);

   b. grants the Plaintiffs' in forma pauperis ("IFP")
      applications with respect to the few remaining claims; and

   c. directs that service of process be effected on the
      Defendants in their official capacities as agents of the
      State of Minnesota.

The matter is before the Court on eight related lawsuits, all
challenging the legality of conditions at the Minnesota Sex
Offender Program ("MSOP"), and all previously stayed during the
pendency of a related class action lawsuit, Karsjens v. Minnesota
Department of Human Services, No. 11-CV-3659 (DWF/TNL). Final
judgment has now been entered in Karsjens. Accordingly, the Court
lifted the stay in all related lawsuits, including those now before
the Court.

For well over a decade, "clients" of the MSOP -- that is,
involuntary civil detainees of the State of Minnesota -- have
vigorously attacked the legality of conditions at the MSOP. In
Karsjens, a class of plaintiffs consisting of all clients who were
then committed at the MSOP, and who were represented by counsel,
pursued numerous claims regarding the lawfulness of conditions at
the MSOP.

During the pendency of the Karsjens lawsuit, the Court stayed
several dozen other actions that had been or would be brought in
this District by MSOP clients, also attacking the legality of
conditions at the MSOP. Each of the Plaintiffs in the stayed
lawsuits was also a member of the class certified in Karsjens, and
some of the claims raised in the individual civil actions
duplicated the claims that were being litigated in Karsjens. Thus,
a stay was appropriate because the resolution of Karsjens would
also resolve many of the claims brought in the separate actions.

Although each of the 71 cases stayed pending the adjudication of
Karsjens was similar in some respects, the eight cases now before
the Court are especially alike. Each of these eight lawsuits was
filed within a short period of time, with the last of the lawsuits
filed only a little more than three months after the first. In each
of the eight complaints, the Plaintiff raises precisely the same 21
causes of action challenging the legality of conditions at the
MSOP. And each of those 21 causes of action is premised upon
substantially the same factual allegations. Indeed, each of the
complaints used to commence these eight lawsuits is practically
identical, with only the Plaintiffs and a small number of the
dozens of defendants changing from one case to the next.

Each of the eight lawsuits also now sits in the same procedural
posture. In each case, the Plaintiff has applied for in forma
pauperis ("IFP") status. Each of the Plaintiffs qualifies
financially for IFP status. But because the Plaintiffs have applied
for IFP status, their complaints are subject to substantive
preservice review under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B).

Judge Foster has now conducted the required review of these
lawsuits under section 1915(e)(2)(B) and concludes that most of the
claims brought in these matters are not viable because the claims
are now precluded by Karsjens, the Plaintiffs have failed to state
a claim on which relief may be granted, or for other reasons.

Accordingly, Judge Foster recommends the bulk of Plaintiffs' claims
be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to section 1915(e)(2)(B).
He recommends the following claims under section 1983 be allowed to
proceed against the state Defendants in their official capacities
only: (1) Ground Two, alleging certain policies or practices at the
MSOP unlawfully restrict freedom of speech; (2) Ground Three, to
the extent Plaintiffs allege MSOP officials have a policy or
practice of unlawfully seizing property; (3) Ground Nine, alleging
certain policies or practices at the MSOP amount to cruel and
unusual punishment; (4) Count Eleven, alleging MSOP policies do not
afford clients adequate procedural protections; and (5) Count
Seventeen, alleging conditions at the MSOP in their totality
violate MSOP clients' constitutional rights.

Because the Plaintiffs do not adequately allege the personal
involvement of any particular Defendant in any specific instance of
unlawful conduct, Judge Foster recommends all claims against the
Defendants in their personal capacities be dismissed without
prejudice under section 1915(e)(2)(B). And because the Plaintiffs
do not adequately plead a claim for relief with respect to the lone
county official named as a Defendant in each lawsuit, she
recommends the county Defendants be dismissed entirely from this
litigation.

Because Judge Foster recommends some claims be allowed to proceed,
she also grants the Plaintiffs' IFP applications and directs
officers of the Court to effect service of process, see 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(d). She further extends Defendants' obligation to
answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs' complaints beyond
the deadline established by Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure until after this Report and Recommendation is
resolved.

Next, because these lawsuits were stayed for so long, the Court
asked each Plaintiff to provide notice of intent to continue
litigating their case, failing which the Court would dismiss any
nonresponding Plaintiff's lawsuit without prejudice for failure to
prosecute. Each of the eight Plaintiffs provided the necessary
notice of intent to prosecute. Some Plaintiffs provided this notice
by filing a formal motion requesting that the Court not dismiss the
proceeding for failure to prosecute. Judge Foster grants those
motions.

Finally, four of the Plaintiffs -- Joseph Allen Hajek, Lloyd
Hartleib, Karl Godfrey Stevens, and Dale Allen Williams, Sr. --
have requested that counsel be appointed to represent them in their
respective proceedings. Judge Foster denies each of the motions for
appointment of counsel. She holds that a pro se litigant has no
statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a
civil case.

Although the complaints are long and complex, she says they will be
considerably less complex if the Court's Report and Recommendation
is adopted. Only five claims would remain pending with respect to
the state defendants in their official capacities. The Plaintiffs'
entitlement to relief on those claims is likely to turn on the
content of policies at the MSOP, which is well within their
capabilities to investigate -- even as pro se litigants. Moreover,
Judge Foster finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated at least a
baseline ability to present their claims and litigate in federal
court. Finally, while conflicting testimony may emerge later on,
this factor does not currently outweigh the others.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Foster grants the following
applications to proceed in forma pauperis:

      a. White, No. 11-CV-3702.
      b. Scott, No. 11-CV-3714
      c. Davidson, No. 11-CV-3733.
      d. Fries, No. 12-CV-0062.
      e. Hajek, No. 12-CV-0343.
      f. Hartleib, No. 12-CV-0344.
      g. Stevens, No. 12-CV-0495.
      h. Williams, No. 12-CV-0881.

Judge Foster grants the following motions not to dismiss for
failure to prosecute:

      a. Scott, No. 11-CV-3714.
      b. Davidson, No. 11-CV-3733.
      c. Fries, No. 12-CV-0062.
      d. Hajek, No. 12-CV-0343.
      e. Hartleib, No. 12-CV-0344.
      f. Stevens, No. 12-CV-0495.

Judge Foster denies the following motions for appointment of
counsel:

      a. Hajek, No. 12-CV-0343.
      b. Hartleib, No. 12-CV-0344.
      c. Stevens, No. 12-CV-0495.
      d. Williams, No. 12-CV-0881.

Judge Foster directs the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service of
process on the Defendants in their official capacities as agents of
the State of Minnesota, except as provided in Paragraph 6 below,
consistent with Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Following service of process, the Defendants must answer or
otherwise respond to the complaints within 35 days of the date when
the Court's pending Report and Recommendation is resolved.

Service of process will not be effected upon the following
Defendants unless otherwise ordered by the Court:

      a. Defendant John or Jane Doe in White v. Dayton et al., No.
11-CV-3702.
      b. Defendant Angie Eason in Scott v. Dayton et al., No.
11-CV-3714.
      c. Defendant John or Jane Doe in Davidson v. Dayton et al.,
No. 11-CV-3733.
      d. Defendant Gary Fahnhorst in Fries v. Dayton et al., No.
12-CV-0062.
      e. Defendant John or Jane Doe in Hajek v. Dayton et al., No.
12-CV-0343.
      f. Defendant Eileen Waterman in Hartleib v. Dayton et al.,
No. 12-CV-0344.
      g. Defendant John or Jane Doe in Stevens v. Dayton et al.,
No. 12-CV-0495.
      h. Defendant John or Jane Doe in Williams v. Dayton et al.,
No. 12-CV-0881.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Foster recommends the dismissal
without prejudice of the following claims from each of the
captioned civil actions: Ground One; the unlawful-search claims
raised in Grounds Three to Eight; Ground Ten; Grounds Twelve to
Sixteen; and Grounds Eighteen to Twenty-One.

Judge Foster further recommends the dismissal without prejudice of
the following Defendants from this litigation:

      a. Defendant John or Jane Doe in White v. Dayton et al., No.
11-CV-3702.
      b. Defendant Angie Eason in Scott v. Dayton et al., No.
11-CV-3714.
      c. Defendant John or Jane Doe in Davidson v. Dayton et al.,
No. 11-CV-3733.
      d. Defendant Gary Fahnhorst in Fries v. Dayton et al., No.
12-CV-0062.
      e. Defendant John or Jane Doe in Hajek v. Dayton et al., No.
12-CV-0343.
      f. Defendant Eileen Waterman in Hartleib v. Dayton et al.,
No. 12-CV-0344.
      g. Defendant John or Jane Doe in Stevens v. Dayton et al.,
No. 12-CV-0495.
      h. Defendant John or Jane Doe in Williams v. Dayton et al.,
No. 12-CV-0881.

Judge Foster further recommends the dismissal without prejudice of
each of the remaining Defendants in their personal capacities.

The Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Objections to the Report and
Recommendation must be filed within 14 days after being served a
copy of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the
objections. All objections and responses must comply with the word
or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Order & Recommendation
is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxaxtsd from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK, NY: Faces Pay Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Tracy, writing for New York Daily News, reports that the
federal government wants the city to resolve the massive salary
gaps between its firefighters, emergency medical technicians and
paramedics -- a bombshell determination that has become the
backbone of a new class action discrimination lawsuit for equal pay
among the city's first responders, the Daily News has learned.

About 25 current and retired city Emergency Medical Service workers
have signed onto the lawsuit, which centers around the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission's decision that City Hall has
"discriminated against current and former first responders of the
FDNY's EMS, based on race and sex, from at least November 8, 2018
to the present with respect to pay, benefits and terms and
conditions of employment."

The feds recommended in December 2021 that the city "reach a just
resolution of this matter" and opened the door for a potential
lawsuit if the city "declined to enter into conciliation
discussions."

With no further movement on the issue, EMS unions stepped through
that door on Dec. 7 with the class action lawsuit filed in
Manhattan Federal court seeking to correct the pay disparity.

Citing the EEOC report, the 57-page suit argues that the city
"suppressed the salaries of EMS First Responders despite the fact
that they perform work that is substantially equal in the required
skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions as their fire
side colleagues."

As a result, EMTs and paramedics have suffered a "loss of wages,
salaries and benefits, as well as emotional hardship and mental
anguish," the lawsuit notes.

EMS employees have been historically underpaid compared to FDNY
firefighters and other first responders since merging with the
department in 1996.

The pay gaps between the two groups continue to this day, even
though the EEOC determined that EMTs and paramedics work just as
hard as their firefighting counterparts, something that was made
abundantly clear during the COVID-19 pandemic.

"The investigation showed that workloads, working conditions,
training, and risks to EMS first responders and firefighters are
comparable, with a substantial degree of overlapping duties,
especially with respect to medical emergencies," according to the
EEOC decision, which was completed after a two year investigation.
"The evidence further shows the two groups have comparable
accountability and responsibility."

Despite their interlocking duties with the firefighters, city EMTs
and paramedics weren't considered uniformed personnel until a 2001
City Council law was passed. The Council further intervened in
2020, passing a resolution calling for EMS to be paid the same as
firefighters, but the city has failed to take action, the EEOC
decision noted.

Entry-level EMTs are paid a base salary of $39,386, according to
the lawsuit. Within five years, their pay increases to $59,534.
City firefighters start their career with a salary of $43,904 that
goes up to $85,292 after five years.

The pay gaps continue throughout the EMS member's career. EMS
chiefs and commanders earn $135,053 a year while their counterparts
on the fire side "who perform substantially equal work in skill,
effort, responsibility, and working conditions" make $235,000 a
year.

While the city's firefighter force is mostly made up of white men,
EMS is mostly people of color and has many women, causing a racial
and gender disparity, the lawsuit added.

"EMS first responders work in the same conditions and perform at
least as rigorous work and require at least as much training and
effort, with at least as much regular hazards, if not more than,
fire first responders," the lawsuit said.

"Yet it is [the city's] policy and practice to compensate the EMS
first responders substantially less than their almost exclusively
male and overwhelmingly white counterparts on the fire side of the
FDNY," the suit said.

"The injustice of pay inequity in the FDNY was not created by the
current mayor or the current fire commissioner," said Vincent
Variale, president of Local 3621, which represents EMS lieutenants
and captains. "But it is their moral and legal obligation to end
it. Thanks to the work of the EEOC they have the opportunity to put
this dark chapter of the FDNY behind us."

Oren Barzilay, head of Local 2507, which represents rank-and-file
EMTs and paramedics, called the EEOC decision "a historic moment
for New York City's emergency medical servicemembers."

An FDNY spokesman could not comment on the lawsuit, citing the
ongoing litigation.

"The FDNY is committed to fair and equitable pay practices. The
case is under review," a Law Department spokesman said in a
statement.

When pay disparity issues are raised, the FDNY says they're not to
blame and any pay increases are hashed out by the city and union
negotiators at the bargaining table.

"I personally believe that they are not compensated as they
should," former Fire Commissioner Daniel Nigro told a City Council
committee in 2021 when asked why EMS isn't receiving better wages.
"But we don't control the process."

When she was the FDNY first deputy commissioner, current FDNY Fire
Commissioner Laura Kavanagh was involved in the EMS union's 2021
contract negotiations, which led to a salary increase for EMS
employees, including a 6% bump for all EMTs and paramedics who
agreed to be trained to respond to mental health calls. [GN]

PAPA JOHN'S: Faces Jones Suit Over Alleged Illegal Wiretapping
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANN JONES; and JANE TENZER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00023 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 6, 2023) is
a class action brought against Defendant for surreptitiously
intercepting and wiretapping the electronic communications of
visitors to its website, www.papajohns.com.

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

The Defendant procures third-party vendors, such as Microsoft
Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code
("Session Replay Code") on Defendant's App, which then deploys on
each website visitor's App for the purpose of intercepting and
recording the App User's electronic communications with the
Defendant's App, including their screen touch movements, clicks,
keystrokes, such as text being entered into an information field or
text box, tracking of the app pages visited, and other electronic
communications in real-time ("App Communications"). The Defendant
intercepted the Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' electronic
communications from the moment they landed on the Defendant's
website and opened the Defendant's App, and before they had an
opportunity to even consider consenting or agreeing to any privacy
or terms of use policy on the website, says the suit.

PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. operates as a restaurant. The
Company provides ordering delicious pizza for delivery. Papa John's
International serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq.
          CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
          308 Hutchinson Road
          Ellisville, MO 63011-2029
          Telephone: (314) 541-0317
          Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                 pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Maureen Kane Berg, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          Email: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
                 khriebel@locklaw.com
                 mkberg@locklaw.com

PHH MORTGAGE: $2.8-Mil. FDCPA Settlement Granted Prelim. Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Buckley Infobytes reports that on December 22, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida granted preliminary
approval of a $2.8 million settlement in an FDCPA class-action suit
resolving allegations that convenience fees were charged when
consumers made payments on their mortgages over the phone or online
in the case-captioned VINCENT J. MORRIS and MICHAEL LUZZI, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. PHH
MORTGAGE CORPORATION d/b/a PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES, on its own behalf
and as successor by merger to OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a New
Jersey Corporation, and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, CASE NO: 20-60633-CIV-SMITH.

According to the suit, the plaintiffs claimed the defendant did not
charge processing fees if borrowers made payments by check or
signed up for automatic monthly debits from their bank accounts.

The plaintiffs further argued that the processing fees were
"illegal and improper because neither the mortgages themselves nor
applicable statutes authorize such fees." The parties agreed to
mediation in April 2022, and a motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement was filed in August.

A coalition of state attorneys general from 32 states and the
District of Columbia, led by the New York AG filed an amicus brief
in the district court opposing the original proposed $13 million
settlement in the suit.

The AGs outlined concerns with the proposed settlement, including
that (i) the relief provided to class members violates various
state laws, and that the defendant seeks to ratify fees in an
"unwritten, mass amendment" that violates state laws and
regulations; (ii) class members only receive an "inadequate"
one-time payment, while the defendant may continue to charge
excessive fees for the life of the loan; and (iii) low- and
moderate-income borrowers are not treated equitably under the
proposed settlement.

Under the terms of the new settlement, members of the class who do
not opt out of the settlement will receive a share of the $2.8
million. The settlement also reduces the fees class members will
have to pay when making payments online or via the telephone for
the next two years.

The defendant also agreed to add additional disclosures to its
website to increase borrower awareness of alternative payment
methods that could have lower fees or no fees.
Defendant's representatives will also receive additional training
to ensure they provide additional information and disclosures about
convenience fees when speaking with customers.[GN]

PHILADELPHIA AMERICAN: Summary Judgment Recommended in Drees Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CONNIE K. DREES, Plaintiff v. PHILADELPHIA AMERICAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-03607
(S.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
recommends that:

   a. Philadelphia American Life Insurance Co. ("PALIC")'s the
      Motion for Summary Judgment be granted; and

   b. Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiff Connie K.
      Drees and PALIC's Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of
      Mark Billingsley be denied as moot.

In 2017, Drees, a Kansas resident, began searching for an
alternative to major medical insurance coverage. She conducted
online research and met with an independent insurance coverage
representative to help her find the right policy. In November 2017,
Drees purchased a Hospital Indemnity Insurance policy from PALIC, a
Texas corporation.

The Policy provides Drees hospital indemnity benefits in exchange
for monthly payments. It lists maximum coverage amounts for
"Hospital Indemnity Benefits" in the form of "Facility Fees" and
"Professional Services." The "Professional Services" benefit
includes a "Daily Surgery Indemnity Benefit for covered services"
that is "3X of current RBRVS per procedure for your provider
location." Nothing in the Policy indicates that the Policy covers
surgical supplies as part of the Daily Surgery Indemnity Benefit.
The RBRVS pertains solely to reimbursement of physician services.

In September 2018, Drees fell off a horse on her property in
Kansas. She was rushed to the emergency room in Overland Park,
Kansas, before being transferred to a hospital in Kansas City,
Missouri. Her injuries were severe, requiring surgery to treat
eight broken ribs and a collapsed lung. In total, her physicians
used 52 surgical screws, eight plates, and numerous sutures to
treat her injuries. The hospital billed Drees $145,977.55 for room
and board, services, and supplies. The total cost of the surgical
screws and plates alone was $68,439.

Pursuant to the Policy, PALIC paid the hospital a Facility Fee of
$31,200 for the six days Drees spent in the hospital,1and a Daily
Surgery Indemnity Benefit of $1,848.39, which is three times the
RBRVS value paid by Medicare. The parties agree that the Policy's
language is unambiguous, and that PALIC paid Drees what it owed her
under the Policy. Once Drees exhausted her benefits under the
Policy, she was still left with a six-figure balance.

Drees filed this lawsuit against PALIC under Chapter 541 of the
Texas Insurance Code as a purported class action on behalf of all
others similarly situated, alleging that PALIC made various
misrepresentations regarding the Policy. Importantly, she does not
assert a breach of contract claim.

Drees sums up the basis for her misrepresentation claim as follows:
PALIC sold Hospital Indemnity Insurance policies to her, and
similarly situated policyholders which promised to pay Surgical
Benefits based on current RBRVS values, using deceptive language
which would lead a reasonable person to believe that PALIC would
pay for medically necessary supplies when, in reality, the payment
system referenced in the policy does not provide any values for
supplies, meaning that PALIC will never specifically pay for the
cost of medically necessary supplies used or consumed in a surgery
provided by a hospital or physician to treat an injury suffered by
a Covered Person during the Policy Period charged to a
Policyholder.

At issue is whether PALIC misled Drees by not disclosing that RBRVS
-- the methodology used for determining payment of the Policy's
surgical benefits -- provides a value only for physician services,
not surgical supplies; and whether PALIC similarly misled Drees by
including the word "supplies" or "supply" three times in the
Policy's Definitions section and twice in the Policy's Exclusions
and Limitations section of the Policy.

Drees advances three arguments, corresponding to the first three
subsections of Section 541.061, for why PALIC's Policy is an unfair
or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance to
misrepresent an insurance policy. First, she argues the express
Policy language constitutes an untrue statement of material fact,
in violation of Section 541.061(1). Next, Drees argues that PALIC
violated Section 541.061(2) by failing to clearly state that the
Policy would never provide any benefit for medically necessary
supplies used or consumed in a surgery provided by a hospital or
physician to treat an injury suffered by a Covered Person during
the Policy Period.

Finally, she argues that PALIC misled consumers, in violation of
Section 541.061(3), in two ways, by: (1) expressly stating in the
Policy that benefits included medically necessary supplies used or
consumed in a surgery provided by a hospital or physician to treat
an injury suffered by a Covered Person during the Policy Period,
and (2) misleading Policyholders by referring them to a payment
system which is not readily available to, or comprehensible by,
Policyholders and provides no values for such supplies.

PALIC has moved for summary judgment. First, it argues that either
the law of Missouri or Kansas should apply, and that neither state
recognizes the claims Drees advances in this litigation.
Alternatively, PALIC argues that Drees's claims fail as a matter of
Texas law. It also argues that Drees's claims are barred by the
two-year statute of limitations, and that Drees's request for
declaratory judgment is inseparable from her statutory claims and
should also be dismissed as a matter of law.

Judge Edison finds that it is undisputed that there is no express
choice of law clause in the Policy. Because there is no enforceable
choice of law provision in the Policy, he must apply the most
significant relationship test articulated in the Restatement. The
majority of the Section 145 factors point to Texas. All in all, he
need not belabor the choice of law analysis, though, because
Drees's claims fail even under Texas law.

Moreover, Judge Edison finds that the Policy's plain language --
which the parties agree is unambiguous -- when read in context,
giving effect to each contractual provision, does not provide
coverage for surgical supplies under the Daily Surgery Indemnity
Benefit, and it would be unreasonable to think otherwise. Neither
the Schedule of Benefits nor Section 3, the Benefit Provisions
section, even mention the word "supplies" or "supply" at all.

In short, there is absolutely nothing about the RBRVS definition
that would make a reasonable insured think it encompasses surgical
supplies. To the extent Drees nevertheless believed that RBRVS
included a valuation for surgical supplies simply because the
definition said that RBRVS was the methodology used by the federal
government, such a belief is unreasonable in the face of the plain
language of the entire definition and the Policy as a whole.

For all these reasons, Judge Edison finds that Drees's statutory
misrepresentation claims under Section 541.061 of the Texas
Insurance Code fail as a matter of law.

In her response, Drees does not dispute that her request for
declaratory judgment is inextricably tied to her statutory claims.
Because Drees' statutory claims fail as a matter of law, her
request for declaratory judgment also fails.

Because Judge Edison recommends that summary judgment be granted in
PALIC's favor, Drees' motion for class certification is moot.
PALIC's motion to exclude expert testimony is similarly moot.

The Clerk will provide copies of the Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have 14 days from receipt to file
written objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and
General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within
the time period mentioned will bar an aggrieved party from
attacking the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Memorandum &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/yetzp5pk from
Leagle.com.


QUALCOMM INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Claims in Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that Qualcomm Inc has
lost an early bid to dismiss all claims in a civil consumer lawsuit
in federal court alleging the chipmaker's business conduct caused
millions of mobile phone and tablet owners to artificially pay more
for their devices.

In a 37-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in
San Jose, California, declined on Jan. 6 to throw out claims that
Qualcomm violated California state antitrust law through "exclusive
dealing" relationships with Apple Inc and other part suppliers and
device makers to maintain a monopoly in the modem chip market. But
the judge dismissed an allegation that Qualcomm unlawfully tied
together the sale of its chips and patent licensing.

San Diego-based Qualcomm can still try to defeat the case entirely
at a later stage in the litigation.

Qualcomm had argued all of the plaintiffs' claims were barred after
the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 2020 lost on appeal a case
with similar allegations. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal in
the FTC case said Qualcomm's practices did not violate federal
antitrust law.

A Qualcomm spokesperson on Jan. 9 said that the "ruling narrows the
plaintiffs' remaining case, leaving only allegations of exclusive
dealing," claims against which Qualcomm has "strong defenses."

Corley said the factual record in the FTC case "does not bind
plaintiffs here" and that "plaintiffs were not parties in FTC v.
Qualcomm." She said consumers may be able to show harm to
competition "where the FTC failed."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for
comment.

The prospective class comprises consumers who purchased certain
devices in California between 2011 and 2018.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said manufacturers overpaid for chips by
more than $9 billion during the class period.

Qualcomm's attorneys had urged dismissal based on the failure of
the FTC case. The lawyers said in August that the "plaintiffs
proceed as though the Ninth Circuit's FTC opinion never happened."

The consumers' amended civil complaint last year asserted only
alleged violations of California law by consumers in the state.

The 9th Circuit in September 2021 scrapped a nationwide class in
the case that was estimated to include up to 250 million members.
Damages on the lower end at that time were estimated as $4.8
billion.

Corley has not certified any new class. She set the next hearing
for Feb. 23.

The case is In re: Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:17-md-02773.

For plaintiffs: Kalpana Srinivasan of Susman Godfrey; and Joseph
Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy

For Qualcomm: Robert Van Nest of Keker, Van Nest & Peters; Gary
Bornstein of Cravath, Swaine & Moore; and Richard Taffet of Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius [GN]

RED LION: Wash. App. Affirms Dismissal of Amended Allentoff Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirms the trial
court's order granting the Respondents' motion to dismiss in the
case, MICHAEL D. ALLENTOFF, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Appellants v. RED LION HOTELS CORPORATION, R.
CARTER PATE, FREDERIC F. BRACE, LINDA C. COUGHLIN, TED DARNALL,
JANET L. HENDRICKSON, JOSEPH B. MEGIBOW, KENNETH R. TRAMMELL, JOHN
J. RUSSELL JR., and GARY KOHN, Respondents, Case No. 83576-9-I
(Wash. App.).

The case involves a merger between the former Red Lion Hotels Corp.
(RLH) and Sonesta International Hotels Corp. Shareholders of RLH
filed a class action complaint alleging that RLH provided
misleading financial disclosures contained in the proxy statement
and later filed an amended complaint alleging the same regarding
RLH's supplemental disclosures before the merger vote.

RLH was a Washington corporation primarily engaged in the
franchising and ownership of hotels in the United States and
Canada. In July 2019, the RLH board of directors and members of
senior management met to discuss a merger proposal from an
independent party. RLH then engaged Jefferies, LLC and CS Capital
Advisors, LLC as RLH's financial advisors and retained merger and
acquisition counsel for a potential transaction. Over the course of
a year and a half, RLH considered multiple offers from interested
parties. In November 2020, RLH considered proposals from three
different entities, including Sonesta.

On Jan. 6, 2021, RLH filed its preliminary proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The proxy
statement included information about the process leading up to the
merger. It contained projections that included forecasts of RLH's
future revenue, EBITDA, and unlevered free cash flows over a
five-year period. It also notified shareholders that they had the
right to dissent from the merger and instead demand payment of the
fair value of their shares pursuant to Chapter 23B.13 of the
Washington Business Corporation Act.

About two weeks after RLH filed the proxy statement with the SEC,
but before the merger vote, shareholder Michael Allentoff filed a
class action complaint on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated (the shareholders). The shareholders' named
Defendants were RLH and individuals who during the relevant time
were members of RLH's board of directors3 and the chief executive
officer (CEO). The shareholders claimed that the named individuals
breached their fiduciary duties, and RLH aided and abetted the
individuals in such breach in connection with the proposed sale of
RLH to Sonesta.

On March 16, more than 92% of the voting shareholders approved the
merger. The next day, the merger closed and the shareholders
received $3.50 in cash per share, constituting an 88 percent
premium to the stock's unaffected trading price.

On August 6, five months after the merger closed, the shareholders
amended their complaint based on information in the supplemental
disclosures and the circumstances surrounding the effectuated
merger. The shareholders added another defendant, Gary Kohn, who
had served as the chief financial officer, executive vice
president, secretary, and treasurer of RLH.

The shareholders claimed that the Respondents' dishonest, bad faith
conduct in orchestrating the unfair Buyout constituted a breach of
their fiduciary duties owed to RLH's public shareholders.

The Respondents filed a motion to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6),
arguing that the shareholders' exclusive remedy for challenging the
merger was under Washington's appraisal statute, RCW 23B.13.020.

The shareholders filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss and,
as an alternative to their request for the court to deny the
motion, requested leave to amend to cure any pleading deficiencies,
including to amend to allege claims solely for negligence. During
oral argument on the motion, the shareholders made no further
mention of the request for leave to amend and the court did not
address the topic.

After the court heard oral argument, it later issued an order
dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The court's order did not
explicitly address the shareholders' alternative request for leave
to amend that was in their written opposition to the motion to
dismiss.

The shareholders appeal. They argue that the trial court improperly
dismissed their complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty because
they sufficiently pleaded facts showing the respondents engaged in
fraud.

The Court of Appeals disagrees. The state Supreme Court held that
the appraisal proceeding in RCW 238.13.020 is a dissenting
shareholder's exclusive remedy unless a corporate action is
procedurally defective or fraudulent. A dissenting shareholder
cannot seek identical relief outside of the appraisal proceeding by
merely alleging fraudulent conduct.

Aside from the shareholders' conclusory statements that the
respondents were "dishonest" and "misled shareholders regarding
critical facts" and engaged in "bad faith conduct," the pleadings
do not present facts that show fraudulent action. The shareholders
also cite cases, many of which are unpublished cases from other
jurisdictions, that do not involve shareholders claiming damages
for undervalued shares. Hence, they have not pleaded sufficient
facts to show that the fraudulent exception under RCW 23B.12.020(2)
applies.

The shareholders argue in the alternative that reversal is still
warranted because the trial court erred in denying appellants'
request for leave to amend the complaint.

The Court of Appeals again disagrees. Because it holds that the
shareholders have failed to show a fraudulent exception to the
appraisal proceeding statute, then absent any other showing that
the shareholders could successfully have pleaded these claims, an
amendment would be futile. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion by denying leave to amend.

The Court of Appeals concludes that RCW 236.13.020 prohibits the
shareholders from bringing this action outside of an appraisal
proceeding and that they failed to satisfy the fraud exception to
the statute. Because the Appellants failed to plead any allegations
of fraud with particularity that would permit this action to take
place outside the exclusive remedy of an appraisal proceeding, the
Court of Appeals affirms.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mrbn2jyt from Leagle.com.

Roger M. Townsend -- rtownsend@bjtlegal.com -- Breskin Johnson &
Townsend PLLC, 1000 2nd Ave Ste 3670, Seattle, WA, 98104-1053, Juan
Monteverde -- jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde &
Associates PC, 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405, New York, NY, 10118,
Cynthia J Heidelberg -- cheidelberg@bjtlegal.com -- Breskin,
Johnson & Townsend, 1000 2nd Ave Ste 3670, Seattle, WA, 98104-1053,
Counsel for the Appellant(s).

Joseph E. Bringman -- jbringman@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie
LLP, 1201 3rd Ave Ste 4900, Seattle, WA, 98101-3095, Sean C Knowles
-- sknowles@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, 1201 3rd Ave Ste
4900, Seattle, WA, 98101-3099, Zachary Davison, Attorney at Law,
1201 3rd Ave Ste 4900, Seattle, WA, 98101-3095, Joseph O Larkin --
joseph.larkin@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, One Rodney Square, 920 N. King Street, Wilmington, DE, 19801,
Rupal K Joshi -- rupal.joshi@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, One Rodney Square, 920 N. King Street,
Wilmington, DE, 19801, Jessica R Kunz -- jessica.kunz@skadden.com
-- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, One Rodney Square, 920
N. King Street, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Counsel for the
Respondent(s).


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: McDougall Sues Over Mislabeled Smartphones
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY MCDOUGALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00168 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2023) alleges
violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, and the New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, labels,
markets, and sells the Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G smartphone with 128
gigabytes ("GB") of storage ("Product"). However, purchasers
receive only 101 GB of storage or 21 percent less than the promised
amount, disclosed in the fine print specifications with the
technical terms of "Internal Memory" and "Available Memory."

The disclosures about the Product's "available memory" and
"existing pre-installed content" are not presented and are not
conspicuous to purchasers at the point of sale, whether through a
third-party like Best Buy or in a store run by a cell phone
carrier. As a result of the false and misleading representations,
the Product is sold for approximately $1199.99, excluding tax and
sales, says the suit.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. manufactures electronic products.
The Company offers televisions, digital cameras, cell phones,
storage devices, home appliances, security systems, smartwatches,
and computer products. Samsung Electronics America serves customers
worldwide. [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
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

SARAYA USA: Faces Suit Over Lakanto Monkfruit Sweeteners' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PRESCOTT, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated; JONATHAN HOROWITZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; DIANE CARTER, individually herself and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SARAYA USA, INC., a
Utah Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:23-cv-00017-AJB-MDD (S.D. Cal., Jan. 5, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants intentionally make false and misleading representations
about their "Lakanto Monkfruit Sweetener" product line in violation
of the California Bus. & Prof. Code, California's False Advertising
Law and the California's Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff contends that Defendants further deceive consumers
about their sugar substitutes to take advantage of diabetics, as
well as individuals who are seeking out healthier forms of desserts
and sweet foods. The Defendants deliberately make false and
misleading statements about the nutritional value and health
benefits of their Sweetener product line, which contains two
types/flavors of sugar substitutes: "golden" and "classic" ("the
Products"), the Plaintiff claims.

Accordingly, the Defendants consistently label and advertise the
Products as "ZERO NET CARBS," "ZERO GLYCEMIC," "ZERO CALORIE,"
REPLACEMENT," "KETO APPROVED" and "KETO." In reality, none of these
claims about the Products are true because Defendants' have based
them on a manipulated and incorrect serving sizes. By using a
serving size that is lower than the required reference amount that
is customarily consumed (RACC), Defendants purposely mislead
consumers into thinking that the Products lack the harmful side
effects of sugar. The Products' front labels exhibit at least two
nutrient content claims: "zero calorie," and "zero net carbs." Both
of these claims are false because they are based on an incorrect
RACC. Defendants' "Zero Glycemic" health claim is unlawfully
deceptive because it misleads consumers to conclude that the
Products are healthy, especially for diabetics, the suit alleges.

The Defendants provided the Plaintiffs and the Class Members with
false or misleading material information and failed to disclose
material facts about the Products, including the fact that they
were based on an intentionally lowered serving size and unlawful
RACC, and that the monkfruit-based sugars were not actually zero
net carbs, zero glycemic, zero calorie, a 1:1 sugar replacement,
keto approved or keto, says the suit.

Saraya manufactures, mass markets, and distributes the Products
throughout California and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shalini Dogra, Esq.
          DOGRA LAW GROUP PC
          2219 Main Street, Unit 239
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (747) 234-6673
          Facsimile: (310) 868-0170
          E-mail: shalini@dogralawgroup.com

SAZERAC COMPANY: Marquez Sues Over Mislabeled Cinnamon Beverages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00097 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 7, 2023) alleges violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, markets,
and sells cinnamon whisky under the Fireball brand. The Plaintiff
expected the Fireball Cinnamon was whisky and contained whisky in a
non-de minimis amount. When viewed together with the Fireball
distilled spirit brand name, the label misleads consumers into
believing it is or contains distilled spirits.

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, $0.99 for 50 mL. Plaintiff paid
more for the Product than she would have had she known the
representations and omissions were false and misleading, or would
not have purchased it, says the suit.

SAZERAC COMPANY INC. operates distilleries and produces alcoholic
beverages. The Company offers bourbon, vodka, gin, rum, whisky, and
cocktails. Sazerac serves customers in the United States and
Canada. [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
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

SKYWEST AIRLINES: SAPA Wins Leave to Intervene in Horowitz Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGORY HOROWITZ, Plaintiff v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-04674-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M.
Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants Skywest Airlines Pilot Association's Motion for
Leave to Intervene.

Before the Court is SAPA's Motion for Leave to Intervene, filed
Nov. 14, 2022, whereby it seeks leave to intervene as a defendant,
either permissively or as of right. Horowitz has filed an
opposition, to which SAPA has replied.

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in
opposition to the motion, Judge Chesney deems the matter suitable
for determination on the parties' respective written submission,
vactes the hearing scheduled for Jan. 6, 2023, and finds SAPA has
shown permissive intervention is warranted.

In the operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint, Horowitz,
who formerly was employed as a pilot by SkyWest, asserts, on his
own behalf and on behalf of a class of current and former pilots
that SkyWest, in violation of California law, did not provide its
California-based pilots all required meal and rest breaks, did not
reimburse pilots for use of personal cell phones while working, and
did not provide accurate wage statements.

Judge Chesney states that permissive intervention requires (1) an
independent ground for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a
common question of law and fact between the movant's claim or
defense and the main action. At the outset, she finds, for the
reasons stated by SAPA, SAPA's motion is timely and common
questions of law and fact exist between SAPA's proposed defenses
and Horowitz's claims.

The first requirement has been met as well, given that the purpose
thereof is to prevent permissive intervention from being used to
destroy complete diversity in state-law actions, and SAPA's
intervention would not destroy diversity.

Lastly, to the extent Horowitz asserts intervention would "serve no
purpose," as, according to Horowitz, SAPA's interests are "more
than adequately protected by SkyWest," Judge Chesney finds SAPA has
shown its members have protectable interests that, at various
points, diverge from those of SkyWest.

Accordingly, SAPA's motion to intervene is granted.

Within five court days of the date of the Order, SAPA will file its
proposed Answer as a separate document.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2prk2n2k from Leagle.com.


SLEEP CO PRIVATE: Faces Hritz Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS HRITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SLEEP CO PRIVATE EQUITY d/b/a SLEEPBZZZ,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-000052 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., Jan. 3, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant
for alleged violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant engages in telephonic
sales calls to consumers, including Plaintiff, to promote its goods
and services without having secured prior express written consent
as required by the FTSA. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls
have caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including
violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance,
nuisance, and invasion of their privacy, says the suit.

The Defendant is a sleep-aid company that sells various types of
sleep-aid products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 289-9471
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  chris@edelsberglaw.com

SONESTA INT'L: Arbitration Bid in Dominguez Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BERTHA DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff v. SONESTA INTERNATIONAL
HOTELS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-03027-JCS (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part
Sonesta's Motion to Compel Arbitration.

In this putative class action, Dominguez asserts various wage and
hour claims under the California Labor Code, including a claim for
civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"),
against her former employer, Sonesta. She alleges that she worked
for Sonesta as a housekeeper/housekeeper supervisor at Sonesta ES
Suites San Francisco Airport from approximately November 2020
through Jan. 7, 2022.

The Plaintiff does not dispute that as part of the onboarding
process for that job, she signed an arbitration agreement entitled
"Mutual Agreement to Resolve Disputes and Arbitrate Claims." Under
the Arbitration Agreement, she and Sonesta agreed to submit all
employment-related disputes to arbitration.

The Arbitration Agreement designates National Arbitration and
Mediation, Inc. ("NAM") to arbitrate all disputes under the
Agreement and provides that the arbitration will be conducted in
accordance with NAM's then current rules for the resolution of
employment disputes, which are available to employees upon request
to the Human Resources Department. It provides that Sonesta will
pay 100% of the Arbitration Firm's fees as well as the arbitrator's
fees and Expenses and 100% of any filing fees that the Arbitration
Firm may charge to initiate arbitration.

The Arbitration Agreement also includes a class action waiver,
contained in a separate section entitled "Class/Collective Action
Waiver." Under it, the Parties acknowledge and agree that the
Company is involved in transactions involving interstate commerce
and that the Federal Arbitration Act will govern any arbitration
pursuant to the Agreement, including but not limited to its scope,
interpretation and application.

Along with the Arbitration Agreement, the Plaintiff also received a
document entitled "Important Notice Regarding Your Employment With
Sonesta International Hotels Corporation." The Notice states that
employees are required to agree to participate in Sonesta's dispute
resolution and arbitration process as a condition of their
employment" and that "because participation in the dispute
resolution and arbitration process is one of the conditions of
their employment with Sonesta, if they decide not to agree to the
terms of the Agreement, Sonesta will consider their employment
application to be withdrawn.

In the Motion, Sonesta argues that the Plaintiff's claims fall
squarely within the scope of her binding and enforceable agreement
to arbitrate and therefore, that the Court should compel
arbitration of those claims on an individual basis and dismiss all
class and representative claims without prejudice.

The Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that the Arbitration
Agreement is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable under the
FAA. Finally, she argues that even if the Court finds that the
Arbitration Agreement is valid and enforceable as to her individual
claims, it should stay the case pending the California Supreme
Court's decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2022 WL
1073583 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2022), review granted (July 20,
2022) Case No. S274671. In that case, the trial court held that the
plaintiff's PAGA claim was not arbitrable under Iskanian (Auto
Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 (1962) and
the court of appeal -- which ruled on the appeal after Viking River
was briefed but before the Supreme Court issued its decision --
affirmed, explaining that "[u]nless and until the United States
Supreme Court or the California Supreme Court directly overrules
it, the courts of this state must follow the rule of Iskanian,
which establishes that the trial court did not err by concluding
that the initial issue of whether Adolph can pursue a PAGA claim as
an aggrieved employee must be decided by the trial court, not an
arbitrator. The California Supreme Court granted review after the
Supreme Court issued its opinion in Viking River, on June 15,
2022.

Judge Spero holds that there is no dispute that Plaintiff was
required to sign the Arbitration Agreement as a prerequisite of
employment by Sonesta. This fact alone is sufficient to establish
some degree of procedural unconscionability. The Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate any substantive unconscionability. In the
absence of substantive unconscionability, Judge Spero finds that
the Arbitration Agreement is not invalid due to unconscionability.
Further, the Plaintiff does not dispute that her claims fall within
the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Therefore, the requirements
of Section 2 of the FAA are satisfied.

Judge Spero also finds that a stay of the Plaintiff's
non-individual PAGA claim is appropriate. Because Iskanian's
primary rule, prohibiting the wholesale waiver of PAGA claims, is
not preempted, the portion of the Arbitration Agreement that
purports to waive the Plaintiff's non-individual claim is invalid.
The only remaining question is whether the non-individual claim
should be dismissed or stayed.

While district courts in California have taken different approaches
to this question, Judge Spero finds the reasoning in
Martinez-Gonzalez v. Elkhorn Packing Co., LLC to be persuasive and
therefore finds that a stay of the non-individual claim is
appropriate. See No. 18-CV-05226-EMC, 2022 WL 10585178, at *12
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022). In Martinez-Gonzalez, the court found
that the plaintiff's individual PAGA claim was subject to
arbitration but his non-individual PAGA claim was not.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Spero grants the Motion in part
and compels arbitration of all of the Plaintiff's claims except her
non-individual PAGA claim. He denies the Motion as to Sonesta's
request that the Court dismiss the non-individual PAGA claim.
Instead, that claim will be stayed pending the resolution of Adolph
by the California Supreme Court. The parties will promptly notify
the Court when the Adolph decision has issued or, in the event that
that case is dismissed without issuance of a substantive decision,
when that case is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/394h6d4w from Leagle.com.


SPROUT FOOD: Court Dismissed Suit Over Mislabeled Food Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Proskauer Rose LLP of National Law Review reports that Judge
Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California recently
dismissed a putative class action alleging that Sprout Foods's
nutritional claims on its baby and toddler food labels misled
consumers into believing that the products provide physical health
benefits.

In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that the products are
"harmful both nutritionally and developmentally" due to allegedly
high levels of free sugars. In rejecting these claims, the Court
found that plaintiffs' allegations were based on speculative
research findings and hypothetical scenarios, which did not
adequately allege that defendant's products are per se harmful.
Davidson v. Sprout Foods Inc., No. 22-cv-01050-RS (N.D. Cal. Oct.
21, 2022).

Pointing to statements such as "3g of Protein, 4g of Fiber and
300mg Omega-3 from Chia ALA" and other "nutrient content claims",
plaintiffs alleged that the products' advertising communicate
health benefits for developing children. Using this interpretation
as a springboard, Plaintiffs alleged that the products' advertising
is false and misleading because the products contain high amounts
of free sugars and are stored in pouches, which plaintiffs allege
may be harmful to developing children.
In dismissing these claims, the Court found that plaintiffs failed
to describe "at what point 'high' sugar content crosses into
harmful levels (or even why, in particular, these sugar levels are
harmful)." And for their allegations that pouched food may be
unhealthy, plaintiffs relied on speculative research findings - for
example, that pouches "may lead to long term health risks" or may
be harmful if overly relied on by parents. Plaintiffs also did not
allege why the purported risks outweighed any potential benefits of
the products, such as providing protein or fiber to consumers.
Noting that a California Court of Appeal has cautioned against
allowing lawsuits to go forward that "rely on inferential leaps and
which could ultimately place almost any advertisement truthfully
touting a product's attributes at issue for litigation," the Court
found plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the product labels
here were false or misleading.

The plaintiffs' bar is widely targeting health claims, including
claims that foods and other goods may pose health risks because
they allegedly contain certain ingredients or contaminants.

This case serves as a helpful reminder that it is often the dose
that makes the poison, and it is not enough for plaintiffs to
allege the mere presence of a substance, and speculative possible
health risks that may result, to state a claim.[GN]

STANDARD FIRE: Denial of Summary Judgment in Young Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANE YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THE STANDARD FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company, Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 21-35777 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's decisions denying
Young's motion for partial summary judgment, striking the class
allegations in her complaint, and refusing to strike the Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment of Standard.

Young appeals the district court's denial of her motion for partial
summary judgment. In that motion, she contended that Washington
insurance regulations establish a bright-line rule that prohibits
insurers from "suspending" -- i.e., temporarily deferring --
personal injury protection ("PIP") payments while they investigate
the reasonableness, necessity, or relatedness of a claim, such that
this practice is a per se violation of state law.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not err in
holding that an insurer's practice of suspending PIP payments while
investigating the reasonableness, necessity, or relatedness of a
claim is not a per se violation of Washington law even if the
insurer's conduct in a specific case might give rise to, say, bad
faith liability. It finds that Young has failed to point to any
Washington statute or regulation that definitively precludes
insurers from suspending PIP payments while investigating whether
to deny, terminate, or limit a claim. Accordingly, the Ninth
Circuit affirms the district court's decision denying Young's
motion for partial summary judgment.

Next, Young contends that the district court erred in striking the
class allegations from her complaint.

Because Young's per se state-law violation theory fails, the Ninth
Circuit holds that the district court did not err by concluding
that Young cannot demonstrate predominance. The question whether an
insurer has violated state law by suspending PIP payments in a
particular case is fact-bound and turns on the jury's evaluation of
the circumstances of that case. Individualized issues, not common
questions of law and fact, predominate. Accordingly, the district
court did not err when it struck Young's class allegations from her
complaint. The Ninth Circuit affirms that decision.

Finally, Young objects to the district court's decision denying her
motion to strike Standard's offer of judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 68. Based on the offer of judgment, the district
court awarded Standard its fees and costs after the jury awarded
Young a sum smaller than Standard had offered.

The district court did not abuse its discretion, the Ninth Circuit
holds. It explains that because the district court did not err in
denying Young's motion for partial summary judgment and striking
her class allegations, the case was properly an individual action
at the time the court denied the motion to strike the offer of
judgment. As a result, there were no class-wide interests against
which Young's personal interests could be pitted. And the offer of
judgment complied in all respects with Rule 68. The district court
therefore did not err in implementing Rule 68 according to its
terms. The Ninth Circuit affirms that decision as well.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ye4zfat3 from Leagle.com.


SUPERCELL OY: Mai's 1st Amended Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PETER MAI, et al., Plaintiffs v. SUPERCELL OY,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05573-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J.
Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, grants Supercell's Motion to Dismiss
First Amended Complaint without leave to amend and dismisses the
action with prejudice.

Plaintiffs Peter Mai and Diego Nino allege that Supercell, a
Finnish mobile video game development company, has engaged in
unlawful and unfair conduct via the development, promotion, and
sale of "loot boxes" in two of its games, Clash Royale and Brawl
Stars. A loot box is a randomized chance within a game to win
prizes, such as new or better characters, coins, spells, and
buildings.

The loot boxes in Clash Royale and Brawl Stars are available for
purchase with either real-world currency or in-game virtual
currency, called "gems." Loot boxes in both games may be purchased
in varying amounts and prices. The loot box prizes contain
randomized items, which are labeled with words such as "Common,"
"Rare," and "Legendary" to indicate scarcity.

The Plaintiffs are California residents. Mai downloaded Clash
Royale onto his Apple iPhone and estimates that he has spent over
$150 in the game to purchase loot boxes. Nino downloaded Clash
Royale and Brawl Stars onto his Android phone and estimates that he
has spent over $1,100 to purchase loot boxes in the games. Both
Clash Royale and Brawl Stars are free to download and play, but the
Plaintiffs allege they were each "induced" to spend money to
purchase in-game loot boxes.

The crux of the FAC is that Supercell's loot boxes in its Clash
Royale and Brawl Stars games are themselves illegal gambling games
under California law. The Plaintiffs further allege that loot boxes
are inherently unfair because they exploit the same cognitive traps
as gambling, particularly for adolescents and other vulnerable
populations.

Mai's original complaint asserted claims for violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200, et seq., violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq., and
unjust enrichment. The predicate offenses constituting the unlawful
conduct were alleged violations of California Business &
Professions Code Sections 19800, et seq., California Penal Code
Sections 330, et seq., the Illegal Gambling Business Act (18 U.S.C.
Section 1955), and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
of 2006 (31 U.S.C. Sections 5361-5367).

On Sept. 20, 2021, the Court granted Supercell's motion to dismiss
the complaint with leave to amend. The FAC reasserts the UCL, CLRA,
and unjust enrichment claims with additional predicate offenses for
the alleged violation of California Penal Code Section 337j. Before
the Court is Supercell Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint.

Judge Davila first addresses the threshold issue of the Plaintiffs'
standing to bring their UCL and CLRA claims before considering
whether the Plaintiffs have asserted cognizable claims.

Claims 1 and 2 assert violations of, respectively, the unlawful and
unfair prongs of California's UCL, which prohibits an individual or
entity from engaging in any "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent
business act or practice."

Judge Davila finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations are
insufficient to demonstrate economic injury. He says the
Plaintiffs' additional allegations in the FAC amount to the
conclusory statements. They do not allege a deficiency in the loot
boxes or virtual currency that they received in exchange for their
real-world currency, or in the loot boxes they received in exchange
for their virtual currency. Nor do they allege that they received a
lesser amount of either type of item than they were promised.

This ruling accords with the decisions of two other courts in this
district, in which UCL claims premised on in-app purchases of loot
boxes were dismissed for lack of standing. Accordingly, he grants
Supercell's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' UCL claims for lack
of standing.

Claim 3 asserts violations of the CLRA, which prohibits unfair
methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices
undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or
which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any
consumer.

Judge Davila agrees with other courts in this district in holding
that virtual currency is not a good or service for purposes of the
CLRA. Further, the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that loot
boxes (and the service of providing them) are prohibited by law.
And lastly, they do not allege facts showing that they suffered
damages from the purchase of loot boxes; in fact, they received
what they paid for. Accordingly, the Judge Davila grants
Supercell's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CLRA claims for lack
of standing.

Even if the Plaintiffs possessed standing, Judge Davila holds that
dismissal of all claims still be warranted for failure to state a
claim under Rule 12(b)(6). None of the additional allegations
change the fundamental premise of the original complaint: the FAC's
claims rest on the assertion that Supercell's loot boxes in Brawl
Stars and Clash Royale are slot machines, so that its sale of the
loot boxes constitutes an illegal gambling enterprise.

To the extent the Plaintiffs' UCL, CLRA, and unjust enrichment
claims are based on Supercell's unlawful conduct, Supercell's
motion to dismiss is granted. In addition, the Plaintiffs have not
plausibly alleged that Supercell's conduct is unfair in violation
of the UCL. As their unjust enrichment claim is based on the same
alleged unfair conduct, it too is subject to dismissal. Thus, to
the extent the Plaintiffs' claims are based on the alleged
unfairness of Supercell's conduct with respect to the loot boxes,
Supercell's motion to dismiss is granted.

In light of his findings that (1) Supercell's loot boxes are
neither illegal slot machines nor controlled games and (2)
Plaintiffs cannot state a claim based on the allegedly unfair
effects of the loot boxes, Judge Davila concludes that amendment
would be futile. Accordingly, he dismisses the FAC without leave to
amend.

A separate judgment will be entered, and the Clerk is directed to
close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yda4pbah from Leagle.com.


TALLY HO LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mitchell Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA MITCHELL, and JERICA NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TALLY HO, L.L.C.; 7402
ENTERPRISES, INC.; KEEZONE PRODUCTIONS, LLC; and KEITH NORATES,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-00043 (M.D. Fla., Jan.
6, 2023) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cooks.

TALLY HO, L.L.C. operates as a restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
          FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone (727) 224-4000
          Facsimile (727) 483-7942
          Email: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
                 asine@fgbolaw.com
                 chris@fgbolaw.com

TARGET CORP: Can Move Consumer Class Actions to Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that defendants can
move class action lawsuits against them from state to federal court
as long as they can plausibly claim they might be worth more than
$5 million and other legal requirements are met, a federal appeals
court ruled on Jan. 9.

The unanimous panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ordered a federal judge in Little Rock, Arkansas to reconsider his
order sending a proposed consumer class action against Target Corp
back to Arkansas state court.

The panel found that U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson had based
his decision on an improper presumption that, when in doubt, cases
should be remanded to state court, going against the federal Class
Action Fairness Act.

A lawyer for the plaintiff, Arkansas resident Robert Leflar, and a
spokesperson for Target did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.

Leflar's lawsuit, filed in July, claims that Target violated the
federal Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act by failing to allow customers
to view manufacturers' written warranties before buying products.
Leflar said he was unable to view a warranty before buying a
laptop, and seeks to represent a class of similarly situated
buyers.

The case does not seek money damages, but rather an order requiring
Target to allow customers to see written warranties before
purchase.

Target in August removed the case to the Eastern District of
Arkansas, saying the amount in controversy potentially exceeded $5
million, the threshold for federal removal under the Class Action
Fairness Act, saying the cost of complying with any judgment could
exceed that limit. To be removed, a case must also have more than
100 potential class members, and at least one defendant and one
plaintiff must be in different jurisdictions.

In remanding the case back to state court, Wilson said Target had
failed to support its claim about the amount in controversy with
evidence. Citing previous cases on federal removal, he said there
was a presumption in favor of remand if there was any doubt whether
the $5 million threshold was met.

Circuit Judge David Stras, writing for the panel on Jan. 9, said
the cases Wilson cited in favor of a presumption for remand did not
apply to class actions, because the Class Action Fairness Act
created its own standard for remand. Courts must instead decide the
issue based on a preponderance of the evidence, he said.

"The nonexistent presumption may well have played a pivotal role in
the decision to remand," Stras wrote, noting that Wilson had not
even addressed all of the arguments Target had made in favor of
removal. The panel therefore ordered Wilson to reconsider under the
correct standard.

Stras was joined by Circuit Judges Ralph Erickson and Michael
Melloy.

The case is Leflar v. Target Corp, 8th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, No. 22-3468.

For Leflar: Brandon Haubert of WH Law

For Target: Terry Henry of Blank Rome [GN]

TARGET CORP: Judge Dismisses Market Pantry Fruit Punch Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP (Washington, DC), in an article for Mondaq,
disclosed that in a December 30 order, an Illinois federal judge
dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against Target which
alleged that the brand's Market Pantry "fruit punch" flavored
concentrated liquid water enhancer misled consumers into believing
the product contained only natural fruit flavoring (subscription to
Law360 required).

The Market Pantry "fruit punch" product declares "Natural Flavor
with Other Natural Flavors" on the principal display panel and
lists "malic acid" as the second ingredient. Plaintiff Jessica
Gouwens argued that based on her own lab analysis, the product
contained artificial dl-malic acid, and therefore the product's
front label should have also disclosed the presence of artificial
flavor. She alleged that she would not have purchased the product
had she known that dl-malic acid was an ingredient.

However, U.S. District Judge Iain Johnston held that Plaintiff
Gouwens did not sufficiently plead that the flavor labeling
omission would mislead a significant portion of the targeted
consumers to be deceived or misled into thinking that the product's
taste was only from natural flavors. The flavor labeling statement
"Natural flavor with other natural flavors" does not amount to an
affirmative representation that the product is free from artificial
flavors. Indeed, Judge Johnston states "[a] reasonable consumer
would not believe that a shelf-stable, bright red fruit punch
flavored liquid water enhancer was free of artificial ingredients
absent an affirmative statement to the contrary."

Gouwens sought to pursue her claims on behalf of a class of
Illinois consumers, as well as consumers in several other states,
for violations of consumer fraud laws. The case was dismissed with
prejudice. [GN]

TERRAFORM LABS: LUNA New York Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Varinder Singh, writing for CoinGape, reports that class action
lawsuit Albright v. Terraform Labs, Pte. Ltd. et al. filed in the
Southern District of New York Court has been voluntarily dismissed
on Jan. 9. The class action filed in August against Terraform Labs,
Do Kwon, and affiliates accused the defendants of falsely
promoting, manipulating, and offering TerraUSD (UST) stablecoin and
Terra (LUNA).

Class Action Against Terraform Labs and Do Kwon Dismissed
Three Arrows Capital (3AC) co-founder Zhu Su in a tweet on January
10 revealed the voluntary dismissal of a class action lawsuit
against Terraform Labs, Luna Foundation Guard, and its executives.

Lead plaintiff Matthew Albright has filed a notice with the U.S.
District Court Southern District Court for the Southern District of
New York. According to the notice, the case is voluntarily
dismissed, without prejudice against the defendants.

The defendants include Terraform Labs, Jump Trading, Delphi Digital
Consulting, Luna Foundation Guard (LFG), Do Kwon, Nicholas Platias,
Jose Macedo, Kanav Kriya, and Remi Tetot.

The class action lawsuit accused the defendants of falsely
promoting UST algorithmic stablecoin, Terra (LUNA), and other
related Terra coins. Moreover, touting the stability of the coins
when profits were being laundered out of Terraform Labs and into
defendants' personal accounts.

The move is likely due to recent revelations of market manipulation
and trading of LUNA tokens by Sam Bankman-Fried's FTX and Alameda
Research. Zhu Su and Do Kwon earlier blamed Alameda Research and
crypto lender Genesis for the UST depeg and shorting LUNA tokens
after the depeg.

However, two class action lawsuits against Terraform Labs and Do
Kwon filed by law firm Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. and securities
and consumer rights litigation firm Scott+Scott are still active.

Terra (LUNA) price soared over 12% in the last 24 hours, with the
current price trading at $1.55. The 24-hour low and high are $1.37
and $1.82, respectively.

The LUNA price rallied massively amid the latest developments
regarding the Terra 2.0 chain. Jared from TFL in a tweet revealed
that Terra Station will automatically update to Station, which is
not compatible with Terra Classic (LUNC). [GN]

TESLA INC: CEO Wants Shareholder Class Action Moved to West Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Haring, writing for Deadline, reports that Elon Musk wants to
move a shareholder class action lawsuit from San Francisco to West
Texas, claiming a lack of unbiased jurors in the Bay Area.

A federal judge is mulling the motion. Musk and other Tesla board
members are confronting a lawsuit that claims he manipulated
Tesla's stock in 2018. That was when he tweeted he was taking the
company private at $420 per share and had "funding secured" to do
so. The "420" was considered to be a joking reference to a time
associated with marijuana smoking.

The stock soared on the tweet, then seesawed for weeks.

In 2018, Musk lived in California and Tesla was headquartered in
Palo Alto, Calif. Musk moved his residence to Texas in 2020, and
Tesla relocated its headquarters to Austin in 2021.

Last year, Northern California Senior District Judge Edward M.
Chen, who is overseeing the trial, ruled that Musk's statements in
2018 were false and that he tweeted them knowingly. The trial would
determine whether the tweets mattered to shareholders, if and how
Tesla's share price as affected, and whether the company or its
directors should be held liable and pay damages.

In the motion to change venue, attorneys argued Musk's Twitter
takeover has generated negative publicity, potentially compromising
a jury pool in the Bay Area.

"A substantial portion of the jury pool in this District is likely
to hold a personal and material bias against Mr. Musk as a result
of recent layoffs at one of his companies as individual prospective
jurors—or their friends and relatives—may have been personally
impacted," the brief read. "The existing baseline bias has been
compounded, expanded, and reinforced by the negative and
inflammatory local publicity surrounding the events."

Protests outside Twitter headquarters and local politicians
inflammatory statements have also tainted the potential jury pool.

Musk and his attorneys argue that the 2018 tweet did not violate
the law, and that he had a deal in place with the Saudi Arabia
Public Investment Fund. [GN]

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Kushelowitz et al. Seek Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY KUSHLOWITZ and KERRI BALDWIN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-07599
(D.N.J., December 30, 2022) is a class and collective action
complaint brought by the Plaintiffs seeking all available relief
under the New York Labor Law as a result of the Defendant's alleged
unlawful policies and practices.

Plaintiffs Kushelowitz and Baldwin were employed as sales
specialists from approximately March 2019 through approximately May
2019 and from approximately April 2020 through approximately
October 2021, respectively.

The Plaintiffs claim that throughout their employment with the
Defendant, the Defendant misclassified them and other similarly
situated Sales Specialists as exempt from overtime. Although they
were required by the Defendant to work more than 40 hours in a
workweek during their training, the Defendant denied them of their
lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek, say the Plaintiffs.

On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated Sales
Specialists, the Plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of the
respective unpaid overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of
this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees,
and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. is a global leader in generics and
biopharmaceuticals. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paolo Meireles, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Tamra Givens, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Tel: (561) 447-8888

TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Deceptive Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyatte Grantham-Philips of USA Today reports  that Trader Joe's is
facing a class-action lawsuit that alleges the company misled and
put consumers' health at risk by failing to disclose on packaging
that select dark chocolate products contain lead and cadmium.

The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on Wednesday, comes one week after a
similar class-action lawsuit was filed in the same court against
The Hershey Company.

Scientists measured the amount of heavy metals in 28 different
chocolate bars. Cadmium and lead were detected in all of them.
Twenty-three of those bars contained potentially harmful levels of
the heavy metals for adults who eat one ounce a day.

It used California's maximum allowable dose level for cadmium (4.1
micrograms) and lead (0.5 micrograms) to measure the potential
risk, giving percentages of the maximum allowable dose level found
in one ounce of each chocolate product.

"Trader Joe's Dark Chocolate 72% Cacao" was found to be high in
lead at 192% of California's maximum allowable dose level, the
report said. "Trader Joe's The Dark Chocolate Lover's Chocolate 85%
Cacao" was high in both lead and cadmium at 127% and 229%,
respectively.

Hershey's Special Dark Mildly Sweet Chocolate" and "Lily's Extra
Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa" to be high in lead at 265% and 144% of
state maximum doses, respectively. "Lily's Extreme Dark Chocolate
85% Cocoa" was high in lead at 143% and cadmium at 101%.
The Food and Drug Administration notes that "lead is toxic to
humans." Health consequences depend on factors such as length of
exposure and the level of lead in a food or drink, but "chronic
lead exposure is associated with kidney dysfunction, hypertension,
and neurocognitive effects," the FDA writes.

Outside of food, lead poisoning can come from a variety of sources
- notably lead-based paint. With "very high levels, lead poisoning
can be fatal," the Mayo Clinic notes.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, when
large amounts of cadmium are eaten, severe stomach irritation,
vomiting and diarrhea can result. Other forms of cadmium exposure
include breathing, particularly through breathing in tobacco smoke
- which, over time and if in significant amounts, can result in
kidney disease, fragile bones and cancer.

Both suits note that defendants' "advertising and marketing
campaign for the Products is false, deceptive, and misleading"
because the levels of lead and cadmium are not disclosed on the
products' packaging or labels that consumers rely on.
"High levels of lead and cadmium in food products is material to
reasonable consumers, because these chemicals pose serious health
risk, even in small dosages," the suits read.

The Trader Joe's lawsuit notes that the plaintiff Thomas Ferrante,
for example, "would not have been willing to pay the same amount
for the (select dark chocolate products) and/or would not have been
willing to purchase the Products" if Trader Joe's had adequately
disclosed that the products contained lead and cadmium. A similar
case is made for plaintiff Christopher Lazazzaro in the lawsuit
against The Hershey Company.

Both class-action lawsuits seek more $5 million of damages,
including statutory damages of $500 per unit sold.

In addition to the Trader Joe's, Hershey's and Lily's products,
Consumer Reports found that select products from brands including
Lindt, Godiva, Dove and Chocolove had high levels of lead or
cadmium.[GN]

TRANSCEND DVENTURES: Prentice Seeks Sales Managers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SKYE PRENTICE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. TRANSCEND DVENTURES, LLC f/k/a NEW GENETICS,
LLC, also doing business as SPACE LABS MICHIGAN, EDWARD MERRIMAN,
and TARIK LESTER, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-10011-SDK-DRG (E.D.
Mich., Jan. 3, 2023) is a collective action brought by the
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Michigan Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage
Act, and for breach of contract.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated workers have worked without
pay for seven weeks or more, notes the complaint. At other times in
the last year, Plaintiff and similarly situated workers have not
received pay when due under federal and state law, despite
Defendants' repeated promises to make payment. The Defendants have
made repeated promises to make payment, but have failed to perform
as promised, adds the complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks monetary relief and liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as
a result of Defendants' practices of willfully failing to pay wages
as required under the FLSA and the WOWA.

The Plaintiff has worked for Defendants as State Sales Manager
since October 2021 to present.

Transcend DVentures, LLC is a domestic limited liability company
with its resident's agent as United States Corporation Agents, Inc.
in Flint, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Blanchard, Esq.
          Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
          BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
          221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 929-4313
          E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
                  hollander@bwlawonline.com

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Aventus Files Class Action Over COVID-19 Tests
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hayley DeSilva, writing for Beacker's ASC Review, reports that
Orlando, Fla.-based Aventus Health has filed a class action
complaint against United Healthcare for allegedly failing to
reimburse Aventus for 35,000 COVID-19 tests.

These tests were submitted to UHC as an out-of-network provider,
according to a release shared with Becker's.

Other plaintiffs in the complaint include ABL Medical Care, a
medical lab in Winter Springs, Fla.; Oviedo, Fla.-based RD Health
Diagnostics; KD Medical Choice, another lab in Winter Springs; and
Sean Bygrave, individually.

The complaint states that under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act, UHC is required to reimburse the healthcare
provider and associated laboratories without proof of necessity.

UHC did not respond to Becker's request for comment. [GN]

UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unpaid Royalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
News Team of Music Industry Weekly News reports that on Wednesday,
January 4th, hip hop duo Black Sheep filed a class action lawsuit
against Universal Music Group (UMG), alleging that the record label
owes them and other artists approximately $750 million in unpaid
royalties. The lawsuit claims that UMG agreed to accept lower
royalty rates from streaming service Spotify in exchange for equity
shares in the company back in 2008.

Black Sheep argue that their contracts entitled them to 50% of
royalties from Spotify and 5% of UMG’s Spotify equity, due to a
clause in their contracts concerning "net receipts."

UMG has released a statement denying the allegations, calling them
"patently false and absurd." The label maintains that it has "a
well-established track record of fighting for artist compensation."
In fact, Universal has publicly pledged to share proceeds from its
Spotify equity with the artists on its roster if it ever sells it.


According to the company’s annual report for investors, UMG owned
a 3.37% stake in Spotify as of the end of 2021. This is lower than
its reported share of just over 5% in 2008, which rose to 7% in
2018 following the acquisition of EMI, which held a 2% stake in the
company. UMG's shareholding in Spotify has decreased due to share
dilutions caused by further investments.

Black Sheep, comprised of Andres Titus and William McLean, rose to
fame in the early 90s with hits such as "The Choice Is Yours" from
their 1991 album "A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing." In other
Spotify-related news, the streaming platform recently launched a
new feature called "Playlist in a Bottle," which allows users to
create their own music time capsule to be opened in the future.

The lawsuit filed by Black Sheep against UMG sheds light on the
ongoing issues surrounding royalty payments in the music industry.
As streaming becomes an increasingly popular method of music
consumption, artists and labels have had to navigate complicated
royalty agreements.

This lawsuit raises questions about the fairness of these
agreements and whether or not artists are being adequately
compensated for their work. It remains to be seen how the case will
play out, but it is sure to have significant implications for both
UMG and the music industry as a whole. [GN]

UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Faces Class Suit Over Spotify Equity Ownership
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Wilkes of NME reports that Universal Music Group is being sued
over its Spotify equity ownership by the hip hip duo Black Sheep,
who filed a class action lawsuit on Wednesday, January 4, 2023.

The hip hop duo Black Sheep claim UMG owes them and other artists
approximately $750million in unpaid royalties.

The duo, comprised of Andres Titus and William McLean, have claimed
that Universal owes them and other artists approximately
$750million (just under £630million) in unpaid royalties.

The plaintiffs claim this is because UMG allegedly agreed to accept
lower royalty rates from Spotify in exchange for shares in the
streaming service back in 2008. Due to a clause in their contracts
pertaining to "net receipts," Black Sheep argue that they and other
Universal artists should have been paid 50 per cent of royalties
from Spotify.

Indeed, they say they also should have also received 5 per cent of
UMG's Spotify equity (or the value of it) because, according to the
duo's suit, this would be "proportional" to their royalty
contract.

Music Business Worldwide reports that Universal has called Titus
and McLean's claim that it accepted lower royalty rates in exchange
for Spotify equity "patently false and absurd". UMG added in a
statement that it has "a well-established track record of fighting
for artist compensation."

Indeed, Universal has publicly pledged to share proceeds from its
Spotify equity, should it ever sell it, with the artists on its
roster.

UMG's annual report for investors confirmed that the label owned a
3.37 per cent stake in Spotify as of the end of 2021. This is lower
than it was in 2008, when UMG reportedly acquired a share of the
company of just over 5 per cent, which then rose to 7 per cent in
2018 when UMG acquired EMI, which had its own 2 per cent stake.
UMG's shareholding in Spotify fell due to share dilutions caused by
further investments.

Black Sheep were mostly active in the early 90s, with their most
well known song being 'The Choice Is Yours' from their 1991 album
'A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing'.

In other Spotify-related news, the streaming platform has just
released a new feature called 'Playlist in a Bottle' that allows
users to create their own music time capsule to open next year.[GN]

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Inflated Ranking
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Roberson of The College Fix reports that three former
University of Southern California students have filed a class
action lawsuit against the school and the education technology
company 2U alleging the two misrepresented the school's program
rankings to U.S. News & World Report.

Lawsuit alleges students were encouraged to accrue student debt
with misleading data
Plaintiffs Iola Favell, Sue Zarnowski and Mariah Cummings allege
USC's reporting practices from 2008 to 2022 resulted in them taking
on student debt for an education they would not have chosen if they
had known its correct ranking, according to the complaint, filed
December 20, 2022 with the Superior Court of California of Los
Angeles County.

Basically they're arguing that they wouldn't have gone to USC --
and taken out a ton of money in loans to do so -- if the university
hadn't been artificially ranked so highly.

"We disagree with the claims asserted in the lawsuit, which are
mostly based on facts that the university already shared with the
community," USC said in a university statement emailed January 3,
2023 to The College Fix. "We stand by our handling of this matter
and look forward to defending against these claims in court."

USC has been working with 2U, a company that specializes in helping
schools create online programs, since 2008. At this time the school
allegedly began to submit misleading information.

For example, it only listed data about on-campus doctoral students
rather than all of the school's graduates, including those in
online programs, in order to boost rankings when promoting online
programs, the complaint alleges.

Based on cherry-picked data, USC Rossier jumped ahead in ratings,
lawsuit claims.
"Specifically, it cherry-picked amongst USC Rossier [School of
Education]'s admissions selectivity data, capturing only a small
percentage of its in-person doctoral students for its submission, a
game it would play until it was caught in 2021," according to the
suit.

"The fraud paid off: between 2008 and 2009, USC Rossier vaulted
from #38 to #22," the lawsuit stated. "In the years that followed,
USC Rossier jumped even further, consistently landing in the top
20, ultimately soaring to an inflated high of #10 in 2018 -- all
while USC Rossier's online offerings and enrollment expanded."

In 2015, USC started an online doctorate program, which included an
USC School of Education EdD program. The school discontinued
submitting any data from the EdD program or other online programs,
as doing so would cause their ratings to fall and negatively affect
enrollment, according to the complaint.

"Defendants never disclosed to those interested in the online
programs that the ranking relied on data measuring only a select
portion of USC Rossier's in-person degree programs," according to
the suit.

"This was by design: 2U's contract with USC required USC to promote
the online degrees in a manner comparable to the promotion of the
in-person degrees and included other language to ensure consistent
marketing."

Plaintiffs took out $40K-$100K each in student debt for a teaching
degree.

One of the plaintiffs, Zarnowski, took out student loans to
complete an online doctorate in education through USC, according to
the complaint. Zarnowski chose USC because of their program's high
ratings, which she saw advertised by both U.S. News and the school.
She now owes $41,000 in student loan debt.

Plaintiffs Favell and Cummings also each secured loans to complete
USC's online Masters of Arts in Teaching program, according to the
suit. Both now owe over $100,000 in student loan debt and allege
they would not have taken out the loans to complete the program had
not been for the school's reportedly high rankings. [GN]

WASTE PRO: Court Awards $5.8K in Attorney's Fees in Rivera Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEX RIVERA, Plaintiff v. WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-363-KKM-AAS (M.D. Fla.), Judge Kathryn
Kimball Mizelle of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Tampa Division, grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiff's supplemental motion for attorney's fees and costs.

Rivera's Fair Labor Standards (FLSA) claim originally arose from a
decertified class action in the Southern District of Florida (the
Wright Litigation). When the court in that case decertified the
class and dismissed the claims without prejudice, Rivera re-filed
this action in the Middle District of Florida. He then accepted an
offer from Waste Pro to resolve his claims, and the Court entered
judgment against Waste Pro in May 2022.

The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation
granting Rivera's motion for entitlement to attorney's fees and
costs and directed Rivera to file supplemental briefing as to the
amount of fees and costs. In his supplemental motion, Rivera
requests a total of $16,465 ($8,4465 for attorney's fees in this
case and $8,000 for attorney's fees in the Wright Litigation).

The Magistrate Judge recommends awarding Rivera $5,805 in
attorney's fees based on the hours Rivera submitted for this action
and on rates of $400 per hour for attorneys Morgan and Botros and
$275 per hour for attorneys Pavlos and Taghdiri. Rivera objects to
the Magistrate Judge's report. He argues that the fees should be
based on rates of $650 per hour for attorneys Morgan and Botros,
$425 per hour for attorney Pavlos, and $400 per hour for attorney
Taghdiri. He also objects to the report's exclusion of fees based
on the Wright Litigation.

Rivera objects to the Magistrate Judge's calculation of a
reasonable rate of compensation for each attorney, pointing to the
declaration attached to his original motion and two recent district
court decisions awarding higher rates. Specifically, he points to
Hightower v. Waste Pro of Florida, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-76 (N.D. Fla.
Sept. 23, 2022) (Walker, C.J.), in which that court awarded similar
rates to those Rivera requests in a case deriving from the Wright
Litigation. He contends that he is entitled to even more fees in
this case because that case was venued in Tallahassee, Florida,
which has lower market rates than the Tampa, Florida legal market.

As the Magistrate Judge explained, Rivera has the burden of proving
that his proposed rate is reasonable, and he has not done so. In
fact, the practice in the Middle District of Florida is to award
attorney's fees for FLSA cases at rates significantly lower than
those Rivera requests. Therefore, Judge Mizelle agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that rates of $400 per hour for attorneys Morgan
and Botros and $275 per hour for attorneys Pavlos and Taghdiri are
reasonable.

Rivera also objects that he should receive fees from the Wright
Litigation, arguing that without Wright occurring, Plaintiff here
would not have the resolution he has received in this matter. He
argues that he "did benefit from Wright and should be awarded a
proportionate share of attorneys' fees from Wright.

But as the Magistrate Judge explained, Rivera must show how the
attorneys' fees incurred in the Wright Litigation benefitted this
separately filed action. He has failed to show a specific benefit
to his case from the Wright Litigation. Thus, Judge Mizelle agrees
with the Magistrate Judge's finding that Rivera is not entitled to
attorney's fees from the Wright Litigation.

After review of the findings and recommendations, Judge Mizelle
overrules Rivera's objection, adopts the report and recommendation,
and grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's supplemental
motion for attorney's fees and costs. She awards Rivera attorney's
fees in the amount of $5,805.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/w5vfrs3b from Leagle.com.


XOOM ENERGY: Court OK's Time Extension to File Response
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mirkin, et al., v. XOOM
Energy, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02949 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Allyne R. Ross entered an order granting the motion for
extension of time to file response/reply:

  -- The Defendant's opposition         February 3, 2023
     shall be due on or before:

  -- The plaintiff's reply shall        March 17, 2023
     be due on or before:

  -- The defendant's motion for         March 3, 2023
     summary judgment and supporting
     papers shall be served on or
     before:

  -- The plaintiff's opposition and     April 12, 2023
     supporting papers shall be
     served on or before:

  -- The defendant's reply, if          May 5, 2023
     any, shall be served on or
     before:

  -- The fully briefed motion           May 5, 2023
     shall be filed in accordance
     with chambers' rules, including
     courtesy copies for chambers,
     no later than:

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.

XOOM Energy through its family of companies is a retail
electricity, renewable and natural gas provider in over 90 energy
choice markets across North America.[CC]

YAHOO! INC: Cal. Supreme Court Ruling in TCPA Class Suit Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew D. Brown, Bethany Lobo, Heidi Lawson and Paul Moura report
that The California Supreme Court's rejects lower-court precedent
holding that TCPA/right to seclusion claims can never be covered
under standard CGL insuring clauses and reaffirming that ambiguous
policy language must be interpreted in a way that fulfills the
insured's objectively reasonable expectations in Yahoo multiyear
legal battle with the National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The court recognized that a policyholder's "objectively reasonable
expectations" are relevant to the determination of a duty to
defend.

The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of California-based
tech giant Yahoo in a multiyear legal battle with the National
Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The
insurer had refused to defend Yahoo against five class action
lawsuits alleging Yahoo violated provisions of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited spam
"robotext" messages. Yahoo settled some of the claims and sought to
recover defense costs from National Union under a series of
commercial general liability (CGL) policies Yahoo purchased between
2008 and 2012.

The policies provided coverage for injuries "arising out of . . .
[o]ral or written publication, in any manner, of material that
violates a person’s right of privacy." The parties also had
negotiated an endorsement removing an exclusion for claims arising
under the TCPA.

The crux of the dispute was whether Yahoo’s coverage for
violations of "a person's right of privacy" contemplated coverage
for the TCPA claims asserted against Yahoo in the class actions. A
federal district court previously ruled against Yahoo on the issue,
granting National Union’s motion to dismiss. The case eventually
made its way to the California Supreme Court on certification from
the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The California Supreme Court explained that the "law of privacy"
protects, among other interests, the right to secrecy (i.e., the
right to prevent "disclosure of personal information to others")
and the right to seclusion (i.e., the right to be free from
"disturbance by others"). The TCPA protects telephone users' right
to seclusion by placing restrictions on automated telephone calls
(robocalls) - which has been interpreted to include text messages
(robotexts) - and unsolicited facsimile machine advertisements
(junk faxes). The parties stipulated that the TCPA does not address
disclosures that would violate the right to secrecy. The court
found the policy language ambiguous as to whether it covered not
only right to secrecy violations but also right to seclusion
violations. The court further reasoned that neither the standard
rules of contract interpretation nor the rule of the last
antecedent resolved the ambiguity. Accordingly, and consistent with
California law, the court found a possibility of coverage and thus
a potential duty to defend. Specifically, the court directed that
the federal district court may recognize such a duty to defend if
further litigation demonstrates that coverage for TCPA violations
was consistent with Yahoo's objectively reasonable expectations -
or if further litigation does not otherwise resolve the ambiguity.

The court also left open for future litigation whether the
policies' advertising injury exclusion may limit coverage or a duty
to defend. Still, the court handed a big win to policyholders by
siding with Yahoo, rejecting lower-court precedent holding that
TCPA/right to seclusion claims can never be covered under standard
CGL insuring clauses and reaffirming that ambiguous policy language
must be interpreted in a way that fulfills the insured's
objectively reasonable expectations.

If you have any questions about cyber insurance and privacy class
action defense, please reach out to a member of the Cooley
insurance and cyber/data/privacy teams.[GN]

ZYWAVE INC: Judge Approves $11-Mil. Breach Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that a federal judge approved an $11
million deal to end a proposed class action lawsuit against
insurance technology provider Zywave.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas in June 2021 alleged Insurance Technologies Corp. (ITC) --
a company Zywave acquired in November 2020 -- did not notify
customers of a data breach in a timely manner.

Carrollton, Texas-based ITC had more than 250 insurance companies
and more than 9,000 agencies as clients when it was bought by
Zywave, and it claimed to be the largest provider of insurance
agency websites in the U.S. ITC also supported millions of auto and
home quotes through its comparative rater called TurboRater.

According to court records, ITC in February 2021 first learned of
the breach that gave hackers access to names, Social Security
numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of birth, and other
information belonging to thousands of ITC customers, potential
customers, and other individuals. The company said it contained the
data breach in early March 2021 but did not begin to notify
customers and attorneys general of the breach until May 10, 2021.

The settlement approval filed January 4 included an award of more
than $3 million in attorneys' fees. Zywave agreed to the $11
million settlement in March. [GN]

[*] Duane Morris LLP Releases Class Action Review 2023
------------------------------------------------------
Duane Morris LLP has released its Class Action Review 2023, an
analysis of 537 class action decisions in 2022, examining all
categories of class action litigation. This one-of-a-kind
publication provides a comprehensive analysis of class action
litigation trends and significant rulings and settlements from 2022
that will enable readers to make informed decisions when dealing
with complex litigation risks in 2023.

"2022 was a year of massive class action settlements like nothing
we have ever seen before," said Duane Morris partner Gerald L.
Maatman, Jr., co-author of the review and chair of the firm's
workplace class action division. "With a certification conversion
success rate of nearly 77% for the plaintiff's bar and a tsunami of
privacy claims coming down the track for 2023, companies need to
redouble their compliance and risk mitigation efforts to address
class action litigation risks and take the necessary planning,
preparation and decision-making steps to position themselves to
withstand and defend class action exposures." Added Jennifer A.
Riley, Duane Morris partner and co-author of the review, "We take
that job for our clients seriously and that's why we've created
this unique resource to help corporate America plan for any and all
threats to its reputation and bottom line."

"Strategically, Duane Morris has been investing significantly in
our Employment, Labor, Benefits and Immigration Practice Group in
2022 and we have added to our platform with marquee talent like
Jerry Maatman and Jennifer Riley. While we have long excelled in
the defense of class action matters, this year we have optimized
our resources for client success," said Duane Morris Chairman and
CEO Matthew A. Taylor. "We are incredibly proud to introduce the
Duane Morris Class Action Review, which is the definitive guide for
understanding the complexities of this type of litigation."

Maatman spearheaded the publication, which reflects his thought
leadership over the past two decades in all types of class action
litigation. A Chambers-recognized defense litigator, Maatman has
defended some of the largest workplace class actions ever filed in
the United States.

Among the 10 overarching trends in the class action area in 2022,
the Duane Morris Class Action Review highlights three key takeaways
for companies in 2023, including:

1. Class action settlements in 2022 redistributed wealth at an
unprecedented level—Aside from the Big Tobacco settlements nearly
two decades ago, 2022 marked the most extensive set of
billion-dollar class action settlements in the history of the
American court system, with 15 class actions that resolved cases
for $1 billion or more in settlements. Many of these settlements
arose from opioid litigation against the pharmaceutical industry.
Much like the era of Big Tobacco settlements that transformed that
industry, the opioid settlements are transforming the
pharmaceutical industry and its distribution chain. Contributing to
the social inflation underling class action litigation, the 2022
results are apt to drive the price of settlements even higher in
2023.

2. Privacy class actions became an intense focus of the plaintiffs'
class action bar—Privacy litigation, in a multitude of forms and
theories, revealed itself as the hottest area of growth in terms of
activity by the plaintiffs' class action bar. The Illinois
Biometric Privacy Act continued to drive lawsuits in that state.
Additionally, a new wave of wiretapping violation lawsuits targeted
companies that use technologies to track user activity on their
websites, based on the theory that such practices violate
electronic interception provisions of various state laws when done
without consent. And while Congress has refrained from addressing
data privacy through federal legislation, many states have enacted
their own laws. Last year saw significant state legislative
activity regarding data privacy, with five states preparing for new
privacy laws to take effect in 2023, including California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Utah and Virginia. Companies can expect an
exponential increase in these types of class actions in 2023.

3. The likelihood of class certification in 2022 was as strong as
ever—In 2022, the plaintiffs' class action bar succeeded in
certifying class actions at a rate of 77% across all areas of class
actions filed against corporate America. The plaintiffs' class
action bar obtained some of the highest rates of certification
success in securities fraud, ERISA, WARN and FLSA lawsuits.
Wage-and-hour class and collective actions saw the most
certification rulings and courts considered more motions for
certification in FLSA matters than in any other substantive area.
As success in certification motions drives risk and often leads to
settlements, these statistics on certification conversion rates
portend more class action filings in 2023. [GN]

[*] Value of UK Competition Class-Action Lawsuits Surged in 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Goss, writing for City A.M., reports that the value of UK
competition class-actions surged last year, according to new data
published on Jan. 9, following the filing of a series of
multi-billion-pound claims against some of the world's biggest tech
companies, including Apple, Google and Sony.

The value of class-action lawsuits filed in the UK over claims
around anti-competitive behaviour surged six-fold over the past
year, from £4bn in 2021 to £26bn in 2022, research by Thomson
Reuters shows.

The six-fold surge in value came as the number of competition
class-actions filed in UK courts increased from a total of six in
2021 to eight the following year.

The increase follows the filing of a series of high-profile,
multi-billion-pound class-action lawsuits against companies
including Sony, Google and Apple over alleged breaches of
competition rules.

The world's tech titans, including Apple and some of the world's
top crypto exchanges including Binance and Kraken, have faced the
brunt of the UK's recent competition class action wave, the
research shows, as it notes 10 of the 14 class-actions filed over
the past two years were against global tech companies.

Sony is currently facing a £5bn lawsuit over claims it abused its
market position to overcharge customers who purchased digital games
or in-game content via the PlayStation store, while Apple faces a
£1.46bn claim over allegations it abused its monopoly power by
overcharging customers through the App Store.

Meanwhile online publishers last year filed a £13.6bn lawsuit
against Google, and its parent Alphabet, over claims it abused its
dominant position in online advertising, depriving website owners
of revenue.

The uptick in value also comes as the UK is increasingly becoming a
major class-action hub, due to new rules allowing for opt-out
lawsuits and the growth of the country's litigation funding
sector.

The new rules, introduced in 2021, let single claimants bring
lawsuits forward on behalf of potentially huge numbers of people,
on an opt-out basis.

The UK's Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) first set a precedent
to allow opt-out lawsuits to be brought forwards in 2021, after
giving the green light to a £14bn class-action against Mastercard,
over claims it overcharged 46m UK customers for cross-border
transactions.

Litigation funders, who bankroll claims with a view to taking a cut
of any winnings, have flocked towards financing these
class-actions, due to the high value of such claims and the
relative low risk of funding them. The costs of bringing forward
such claims mean claimants often seek out third-party funding to
cover legal fees.

In regards to competition cases specifically, the risk associated
with backing such lawsuits is often particularly low due to
liability have already been shown in EU law, which forms the basis
of UK competition law.

Thomson Reuters competition expert Warsha Kalé said: "Litigation
funders have plenty of dry powder to deploy, adding a whole new
level of risk for corporates who's activity strays over the line
and can be shown to breach competition law."

The research follows warnings that a lull in the private equity
market, caused by higher interest rates, could lead to a downturn
in the litigation funding sector, that could in turn hit legal
sector revenues on a wider basis. [GN]


                            *********

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 ***